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