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