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