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