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. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Numbers
Oversimplification
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
2. 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.
Numbers
Equivocation
Division
Vagueness
3. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Smoke screen
Ad hominem
Begging the question
Circular Reasoning
4. 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'
Division
Ethos
Opinion
Undistributed Middle
5. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Numbers
Slippery slope
Red herring
6. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Single cause
Red herring
Ad hominem
Opinion
7. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Oversimplification
Straw man
Opinion
8. 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
Correlation as cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Appeal to the golden mean
Numbers
9. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Hasty generalization
Dog whistle
Either-or Reasoning
False authority
10. 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?
Composition
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Prevalent Proof
11. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Nonsequiter
Prevalent Proof
Smoke screen
Either-or Reasoning
12. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
13. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Either-or Reasoning
Anecdote
14. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad hominem
Ad misericordia
Equivocation
Stereotyping
15. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Cause-effect relationships
Red Herring
16. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Correlation as cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Values
17. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
False authority
Genetic Fallacy
Fact
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
18. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Dog whistle
Smoke screen
Either-or Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
19. 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.'
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
Equivocation
Either-or Reasoning
20. 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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
Dog whistle
Oversimplification
21. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Inductive Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Composition
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
22. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Single cause
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Logos
Ad hominem
23. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Smoke screen
Straw man
Red herring
24. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Slippery slope
25. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Opinion
Hasty generalization
Single cause
Genetic Fallacy
26. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Statistic
Inductive Reasoning
Composition
Smoke screen
27. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
False authority
Either -or
Red herring
Ad populum
28. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
False analogy
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Hasty generalization
Nonsequiter
29. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Double standard
False authority
30. 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
Irrelevant Proof
Double standard
31. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Composition
Fact
Statistic
Undistributed Middle
32. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
False analogy
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Deductive Reasoning
Equivocation
33. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery slope
Stereotyping
Ad hominem
34. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Ad vericundium
Logos
Division
Correlation as cause
35. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Equivocation
Appeal to the golden mean
Statistic
Slippery slope
36. 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.
Opinion
Ad populum
Straw man
Nonsequiter
37. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Prevalent Proof
Division
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
38. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False authority
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad misericordia
39. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Slippery Slope
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Oversimplification
40. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Vagueness
Ad misericordia
Statistic
41. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
Oversimplification
Special pleading
42. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Slippery Slope
Stereotyping
Numbers
Oversimplification
43. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Smoke screen
Either -or
44. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Equivocation
Irrelevant Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Nonsequiter
45. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Double standard
Red herring
Hasty generalization
Slippery Slope
46. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Stereotyping
Appeal to Authority
Equivocation
47. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Ethos
Single cause
Oversimplification
Red Herring
48. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Stereotyping
Single cause
Circular Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
49. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Appeal to Authority
False analogy
Cause-effect relationships
Ad hominem
50. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Ad vericundium
Numbers
Anecdote
Begging the question