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