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