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