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