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