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