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