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