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