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