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