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