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