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