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