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