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