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