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