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