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