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