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 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.
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Straw man
Stereotyping
Double standard
2. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Cause-effect relationships
Smoke screen
3. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Anecdote
Single cause
Dog whistle
Slippery Slope
4. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Fact
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Ad populum
5. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Special pleading
Hasty generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Ad misericordia
6. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Special pleading
Irrelevant Proof
Negative Proof
Pathos
7. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Either-or Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Inductive Reasoning
8. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Double standard
Red Herring
Smoke screen
Straw man
9. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
False scenario
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Equivocation
Values
10. 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
Single cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Red herring
11. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Smoke screen
Oversimplification
Ad populum
Irrelevant Proof
12. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
13. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
False analogy
Ad vericundium
Ethos
Equivocation
14. 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.'
Pathos
Appeal to Authority
Genetic Fallacy
Ad hominem
15. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Red herring
Anecdote
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad hominem
16. 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'
Undistributed Middle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Genetic Fallacy
Ethos
17. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Fact
Ad populum
Appeal to Authority
Genetic Fallacy
18. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Composition
Ethos
Either -or
19. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
False analogy
Begging the question
Either-or Reasoning
Special pleading
20. 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.
False scenario
Special pleading
Equivocation
Irrelevant Proof
21. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Vagueness
Inductive Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
22. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Statistic
Negative Proof
Either -or
23. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Double standard
Ethos
Numbers
False authority
24. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Fact
Straw man
Ad populum
Slippery Slope
25. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
Division
Composition
26. 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
Equivocation
Ad populum
Ad hominem
Correlation as cause
27. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Slippery slope
Smoke screen
False authority
Ethos
28. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Single cause
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Statistic
29. 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.
Numbers
Composition
False authority
Dog whistle
30. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Correlation as cause
Circular Reasoning
Ad hominem
31. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Irrelevant Proof
Equivocation
32. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Vagueness
Ad hominem
33. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Circular Reasoning
Red herring
Ad hominem
Cause-effect relationships
34. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Opinion
Division
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
False analogy
35. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Red Herring
36. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Dog whistle
Genetic Fallacy
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
37. Appeal to reason
Begging the question
Either -or
Correlation as cause
Logos
38. 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.
False scenario
Ad hominem
Values
Appeal to Authority
39. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Circular Reasoning
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
Numbers
40. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Appeal to Authority
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
Red herring
41. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Ad vericundium
Ad populum
Deductive Reasoning
Hasty generalization
42. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Stereotyping
Smoke screen
Single cause
Numbers
43. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Appeal to the golden mean
Special pleading
Ad vericundium
Vagueness
44. 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!'
Correlation as cause
False scenario
Slippery Slope
Undistributed Middle
45. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Deductive Reasoning
Anecdote
Numbers
46. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad vericundium
Stereotyping
Ad misericordia
47. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Either -or
False analogy
Prevalent Proof
Slippery Slope
48. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Correlation as cause
Values
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
49. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Oversimplification
Single cause
Opinion
Double standard
50. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Appeal to the golden mean
Division
Statistic
Appeal to Authority