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