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