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