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