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