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