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