SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
SAT Essay Logical Fallacies
Start Test
Study First
Subjects
:
sat
,
english
,
writing-skills
Instructions:
Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
If you are not ready to take this test, you can
study here
.
Match each statement with the correct term.
Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.
This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Circular Reasoning
Slippery Slope
Either-or Reasoning
Statistic
2. Appeal to reason
Nonsequiter
Irrelevant Proof
Logos
Numbers
3. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Red herring
Special pleading
Ad hominem
Nonsequiter
4. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
5. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
6. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Cause-effect relationships
Red Herring
Division
7. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Hasty generalization
Genetic Fallacy
False scenario
Correlation as cause
8. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Appeal to the golden mean
Dog whistle
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Fact
9. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Cause-effect relationships
Ad hominem
Anecdote
10. The use by a speaker of coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different (and negative) meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.
Genetic Fallacy
Pathos
Begging the question
Dog whistle
11. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Division
False analogy
12. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Dog whistle
Division
Red herring
Ad hominem
13. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Oversimplification
Ad misericordia
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
14. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Prevalent Proof
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Hasty generalization
15. When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument. i.e. People choose what laws they obey. The Law of Gravity is a law. I choose to disobey the law of gravity.
Begging the question
Composition
Equivocation
Appeal to the golden mean
16. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Statistic
17. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
Undistributed Middle
18. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
False authority
Slippery slope
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
19. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Logos
Ad hominem
Vagueness
Anecdote
20. False transitive property - you assume that just because two things share a characteristic - all of their characteristics are shared: - 'penguins are black and white - old tv shows are black and white - therefore penguins are old tv shows'
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Inductive Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
False analogy
21. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Numbers
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
22. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
Red Herring
Circular Reasoning
23. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Equivocation
Ad vericundium
Ad hominem
Inductive Reasoning
24. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Equivocation
Vagueness
Either -or
Numbers
25. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Equivocation
Slippery slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Negative Proof
26. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Cause-effect relationships
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Stereotyping
27. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Vagueness
Special pleading
Red herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
28. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Stereotyping
Circular Reasoning
Dog whistle
29. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Undistributed Middle
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Oversimplification
Division
30. Reasoning by Proof: A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a person or institution.
Either-or Reasoning
Equivocation
Smoke screen
Appeal to Authority
31. Cause and Effect: A fallacy that assumes that because two variables are correlated (happen at the same time) that one must have caused the other
Slippery Slope
Correlation as cause
Double standard
Stereotyping
32. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ad hominem
Ethos
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
33. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad hominem
Ad populum
34. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
False authority
Nonsequiter
Pathos
35. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Ad populum
Ethos
Fact
Equivocation
36. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Red Herring
Ad vericundium
Stereotyping
Undistributed Middle
37. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Pathos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
38. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Logos
Pathos
Opinion
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
39. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Stereotyping
Hasty generalization
40. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Composition
Equivocation
Double standard
Cause-effect relationships
41. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Single cause
Prevalent Proof
Hasty generalization
Appeal to Authority
42. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Numbers
False authority
Deductive Reasoning
43. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Deductive Reasoning
Red Herring
Special pleading
Circular Reasoning
44. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ethos
Composition
Hasty generalization
Ad misericordia
45. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Single cause
Either -or
Appeal to the golden mean
False authority
46. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Appeal to the golden mean
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
47. Is there a reasonable connection between the cause and the effect? Is that connection explained? Are there other possible causes that have not been considered?
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Nonsequiter
Correlation as cause
Logos
48. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Ad populum
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Values
49. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Opinion
Cause-effect relationships
Deductive Reasoning
Stereotyping
50. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Correlation as cause
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
Stereotyping