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