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. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Stereotyping
Appeal to Authority
Composition
2. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Undistributed Middle
Logos
Hasty generalization
Cause-effect relationships
3. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Appeal to the golden mean
Numbers
False scenario
Fact
4. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Red Herring
Opinion
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
5. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Ad populum
Division
Values
Either-or Reasoning
6. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Straw man
Ad hominem
Vagueness
Values
7. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Cause-effect relationships
Red Herring
8. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Straw man
Double standard
False authority
9. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Either -or
Double standard
False analogy
Oversimplification
10. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Numbers
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
11. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Either -or
Begging the question
Ad hominem
Fact
12. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Begging the question
Deductive Reasoning
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
13. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Equivocation
Composition
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
14. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Vagueness
Begging the question
False analogy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
15. 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
Statistic
Fact
16. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Red herring
Appeal to the golden mean
Equivocation
Ad populum
17. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Equivocation
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
18. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Opinion
Correlation as cause
Anecdote
Dog whistle
19. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Begging the question
Genetic Fallacy
Ad vericundium
Appeal to Authority
20. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Hasty generalization
Irrelevant Proof
Equivocation
Ad populum
21. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Red herring
Stereotyping
Equivocation
22. 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.'
Ad hominem
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
Vagueness
23. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Ad populum
Single cause
Values
Negative Proof
24. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Ad vericundium
Stereotyping
25. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Nonsequiter
Hasty generalization
Ethos
26. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Appeal to the golden mean
Ad vericundium
Equivocation
Red herring
27. 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.
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
28. 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?
Fact
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Either-or Reasoning
29. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Equivocation
Equivocation
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
30. 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'
Equivocation
Ad populum
Undistributed Middle
Cause-effect relationships
31. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Statistic
Deductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
32. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Begging the question
Smoke screen
Hasty generalization
33. Appeal to reason
Inductive Reasoning
Logos
Ad hominem
Ad populum
34. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
False authority
Red Herring
Anecdote
Stereotyping
35. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Prevalent Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Values
Statistic
36. 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
Slippery slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to Authority
37. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Ad vericundium
Red Herring
Anecdote
Pathos
38. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Single cause
Genetic Fallacy
39. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Pathos
Ad hominem
Composition
Either -or
40. 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
False analogy
Red herring
Correlation as cause
Composition
41. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Smoke screen
Numbers
42. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Undistributed Middle
Statistic
Circular Reasoning
Red herring
43. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Numbers
Ad vericundium
Statistic
Undistributed Middle
44. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Red herring
Smoke screen
Pathos
Special pleading
45. 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.
Dog whistle
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
46. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Logos
Values
Smoke screen
47. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Appeal to the golden mean
False analogy
Slippery Slope
Appeal to Authority
48. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Correlation as cause
Values
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Stereotyping
49. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Begging the question
Anecdote
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Equivocation
50. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Anecdote
Cause-effect relationships
Circular Reasoning