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