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. 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!'
False scenario
Equivocation
Special pleading
Undistributed Middle
2. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Anecdote
Undistributed Middle
Vagueness
Single cause
3. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Opinion
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Inductive Reasoning
4. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Pathos
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Begging the question
Red herring
5. 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
Pathos
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Anecdote
6. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Irrelevant Proof
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Statistic
7. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Slippery Slope
Genetic Fallacy
Anecdote
Double standard
8. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Ethos
Ad hominem
Ad vericundium
9. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Prevalent Proof
Ad populum
Hasty generalization
Anecdote
10. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Ethos
Begging the question
11. 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?
False analogy
Special pleading
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Anecdote
12. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Oversimplification
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Numbers
Inductive Reasoning
13. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Stereotyping
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Double standard
14. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Composition
Appeal to the golden mean
Statistic
Inductive Reasoning
15. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Slippery Slope
Hasty generalization
16. 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 populum
Cause-effect relationships
Appeal to Authority
Anecdote
17. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either -or
Either-or Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Division
18. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Smoke screen
Deductive Reasoning
Opinion
Logos
19. 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.
Equivocation
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
Either-or Reasoning
20. 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
Circular Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Irrelevant Proof
Numbers
21. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Nonsequiter
Logos
Begging the question
Genetic Fallacy
22. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Anecdote
Special pleading
Correlation as cause
Numbers
23. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Ad vericundium
Special pleading
Numbers
False authority
24. Appeal to reason
Inductive Reasoning
Vagueness
Slippery slope
Logos
25. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Slippery Slope
Red herring
Irrelevant Proof
Nonsequiter
26. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Statistic
Hasty generalization
Oversimplification
Values
27. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Fact
Irrelevant Proof
Ad hominem
Deductive Reasoning
28. 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 hominem
Straw man
False authority
Ad hominem
29. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Deductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Straw man
30. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Special pleading
Either -or
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False analogy
31. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Circular Reasoning
Red herring
Special pleading
32. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Appeal to Authority
Composition
Ad populum
Ad misericordia
33. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Numbers
False authority
Ad hominem
Deductive Reasoning
34. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Prevalent Proof
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad populum
35. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Values
Appeal to Authority
Single cause
False scenario
36. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Stereotyping
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Fact
37. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Red Herring
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
38. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Numbers
Pathos
False analogy
Ad hominem
39. 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.'
Dog whistle
Ad hominem
Smoke screen
Statistic
40. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Deductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Circular Reasoning
41. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Ethos
False analogy
Slippery slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
42. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
False analogy
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Vagueness
Composition
43. 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
Straw man
Statistic
44. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False scenario
Negative Proof
Equivocation
45. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad vericundium
Special pleading
Correlation as cause
46. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Vagueness
Statistic
Either-or Reasoning
47. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Red herring
Nonsequiter
False authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
48. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Composition
Hasty generalization
49. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Special pleading
Anecdote
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
50. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Smoke screen
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Nonsequiter