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