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