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