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. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Vagueness
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Double standard
Correlation as cause
2. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Ethos
Ad hominem
Division
Deductive Reasoning
3. 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?
Vagueness
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Composition
4. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Red Herring
Oversimplification
Anecdote
Fact
5. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Pathos
Either -or
Ethos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
6. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Deductive Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
7. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Cause-effect relationships
Stereotyping
Double standard
Deductive Reasoning
8. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ad hominem
Ethos
Red herring
Deductive Reasoning
9. 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.
Prevalent Proof
False analogy
Division
Equivocation
10. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Straw man
Smoke screen
Ad populum
Opinion
11. Reasoning by Debate: In an argument - this is an attack on the person rather than on the opponent's ideas. It comes from the Latin meaning 'against the man.'
Statistic
Genetic Fallacy
Ad hominem
Logos
12. Reasoning by Debate: When a writer argues against a claim that nobody actually holds or is universally considered weak. Setting up a straw man diverts attention from the real issues.
Values
Ad hominem
Straw man
Opinion
13. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Anecdote
14. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Logos
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Hasty generalization
15. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Ad vericundium
Division
Inductive Reasoning
Pathos
16. 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.
Ad hominem
Logos
Slippery Slope
Appeal to Authority
17. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Inductive Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
Oversimplification
Special pleading
18. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Equivocation
Values
Slippery slope
Appeal to the golden mean
19. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Double standard
Negative Proof
Irrelevant Proof
Ethos
20. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Double standard
Hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Fact
21. Appeal to reason
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Logos
Single cause
Vagueness
22. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Vagueness
23. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Equivocation
Special pleading
Either -or
Fact
24. Cause and Effect: 'What if' fallacy. Argues that everything would be different if one variable was different. Example: 'If the Nazis had won WWII - we'd all be speaking German!'
Special pleading
Opinion
False scenario
Begging the question
25. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad populum
Ad misericordia
Values
Ad hominem
26. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Prevalent Proof
Anecdote
Nonsequiter
27. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Begging the question
Ad misericordia
Composition
28. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Ad populum
False authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Single cause
29. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
False analogy
Either -or
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
30. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Ad vericundium
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Smoke screen
Red herring
31. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Either-or Reasoning
Equivocation
Division
32. 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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
Dog whistle
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
33. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Slippery Slope
Deductive Reasoning
Slippery slope
34. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Double standard
Numbers
Opinion
Appeal to Authority
35. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Composition
Ad vericundium
Oversimplification
Double standard
36. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Ad vericundium
Straw man
Opinion
37. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Single cause
Cause-effect relationships
Prevalent Proof
Ad hominem
38. 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'
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Division
Undistributed Middle
Smoke screen
39. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Red Herring
Special pleading
Irrelevant Proof
Appeal to the golden mean
40. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Correlation as cause
Values
Negative Proof
Red Herring
41. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Division
Single cause
Either-or Reasoning
42. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Appeal to Authority
Deductive Reasoning
Oversimplification
Nonsequiter
43. 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
Statistic
Ad misericordia
Either-or Reasoning
Correlation as cause
44. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery slope
Statistic
Circular Reasoning
45. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Ad misericordia
Red herring
Ad hominem
Cause-effect relationships
46. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Prevalent Proof
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to the golden mean
47. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False scenario
48. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Inductive Reasoning
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Oversimplification
49. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Single cause
Equivocation
Opinion
Special pleading
50. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support
Ad hominem
Begging the question
Appeal to Authority
Negative Proof