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