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