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