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