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