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