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