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