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