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