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