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