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