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. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Begging the question
Division
Negative Proof
False analogy
2. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Equivocation
Fact
Composition
Straw man
3. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Slippery Slope
Genetic Fallacy
Equivocation
Appeal to Authority
4. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
False analogy
Appeal to the golden mean
Single cause
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
5. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Values
Numbers
False analogy
Division
6. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Hasty generalization
Either -or
Single cause
Negative Proof
7. 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?
Logos
Ad hominem
Numbers
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
8. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Values
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Stereotyping
9. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
False analogy
Logos
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
10. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Begging the question
Ad vericundium
Hasty generalization
Slippery Slope
11. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Values
Logos
Red Herring
Deductive Reasoning
12. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Anecdote
Prevalent Proof
False authority
Fact
13. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Deductive Reasoning
Red Herring
Ad misericordia
Circular Reasoning
14. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Irrelevant Proof
Stereotyping
15. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Either -or
Prevalent Proof
False scenario
16. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Oversimplification
Negative Proof
False authority
17. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Slippery slope
Ad hominem
Either-or Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
18. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Double standard
Negative Proof
Statistic
19. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Oversimplification
Red herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Double standard
20. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Red herring
Nonsequiter
Hasty generalization
21. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Ad hominem
Equivocation
False scenario
22. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Undistributed Middle
Equivocation
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
23. 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
Cause-effect relationships
Correlation as cause
Opinion
Ad hominem
24. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Pathos
Correlation as cause
Opinion
Either-or Reasoning
25. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Irrelevant Proof
Either-or Reasoning
Ad populum
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
26. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Irrelevant Proof
Either -or
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
27. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Double standard
Composition
Special pleading
28. 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.
Equivocation
Straw man
Slippery slope
Correlation as cause
29. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Dog whistle
Smoke screen
Opinion
Deductive Reasoning
30. 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'
Prevalent Proof
Statistic
Undistributed Middle
Appeal to Authority
31. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Inductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Ethos
Nonsequiter
32. 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.
Straw man
Appeal to Authority
Vagueness
False analogy
33. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Either-or Reasoning
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
34. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Appeal to the golden mean
Cause-effect relationships
Begging the question
Ad populum
35. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Statistic
Begging the question
False scenario
36. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support
Appeal to Authority
Begging the question
Pathos
Double standard
37. 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.'
Hasty generalization
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Ad hominem
38. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Ad hominem
Hasty generalization
Either -or
Slippery Slope
39. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Statistic
Stereotyping
Vagueness
40. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
False scenario
Numbers
Negative Proof
Ad misericordia
41. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Nonsequiter
42. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Red herring
Special pleading
Ad populum
Undistributed Middle
43. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Double standard
False authority
Logos
Cause-effect relationships
44. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Genetic Fallacy
Pathos
Equivocation
Red herring
45. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Ad misericordia
Appeal to the golden mean
Oversimplification
Slippery slope
46. 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!'
Equivocation
False scenario
Division
Equivocation
47. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Stereotyping
Division
Prevalent Proof
Double standard
48. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Dog whistle
Hasty generalization
Smoke screen
49. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Straw man
Numbers
Statistic
Opinion
50. 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.
Equivocation
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Appeal to the golden mean