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