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