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