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