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