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