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