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