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