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