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