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