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