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