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