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