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