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