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