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