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. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Vagueness
Special pleading
Ethos
2. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Hasty generalization
Nonsequiter
Circular Reasoning
Composition
3. 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 scenario
Dog whistle
Logos
Red Herring
4. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Ad vericundium
Ad populum
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
5. 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
Single cause
Composition
Vagueness
6. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Slippery Slope
Division
Slippery slope
7. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning
False analogy
Undistributed Middle
8. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Correlation as cause
Irrelevant Proof
Division
Ad vericundium
9. 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.'
Vagueness
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad hominem
10. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Correlation as cause
Equivocation
Double standard
Smoke screen
11. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Hasty generalization
Slippery slope
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
12. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Appeal to the golden mean
Prevalent Proof
Fact
Ad populum
13. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Appeal to Authority
Equivocation
Nonsequiter
14. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False authority
15. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Opinion
Nonsequiter
Appeal to the golden mean
16. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Smoke screen
Equivocation
Ad vericundium
17. 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.
Appeal to Authority
Ethos
Anecdote
Cause-effect relationships
18. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad vericundium
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
19. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Ad populum
Fact
Logos
20. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad populum
Red Herring
21. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Prevalent Proof
Ethos
Appeal to Authority
Either -or
22. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Slippery Slope
Single cause
Ad populum
23. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Equivocation
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Division
24. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
False authority
Appeal to the golden mean
Appeal to Authority
Prevalent Proof
25. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Inductive Reasoning
Special pleading
Cause-effect relationships
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
26. 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.
False analogy
Straw man
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
27. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Ad hominem
Logos
Single cause
28. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Vagueness
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Irrelevant Proof
29. 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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
Ad populum
Equivocation
30. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Red herring
Oversimplification
Slippery Slope
Ethos
31. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Stereotyping
Ad hominem
Ad vericundium
32. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Vagueness
Ad hominem
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
33. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Numbers
Red herring
Appeal to the golden mean
Ethos
34. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Slippery slope
Hasty generalization
Nonsequiter
Oversimplification
35. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Numbers
Nonsequiter
Ad hominem
36. Appeal to reason
Single cause
Ad populum
Logos
Ad misericordia
37. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Red Herring
Appeal to the golden mean
Nonsequiter
Division
38. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Fact
Anecdote
39. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Appeal to the golden mean
Either -or
Smoke screen
40. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Appeal to the golden mean
Oversimplification
Stereotyping
Hasty generalization
41. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Either-or Reasoning
Division
Undistributed Middle
42. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Deductive Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Hasty generalization
43. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Statistic
Single cause
Genetic Fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
44. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Numbers
Ad misericordia
Slippery Slope
Values
45. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Negative Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Cause-effect relationships
46. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Dog whistle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Slippery slope
Either-or Reasoning
47. 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
Dog whistle
Vagueness
Single cause
Correlation as cause
48. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Correlation as cause
False authority
False analogy
Begging the question
49. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Inductive Reasoning
Division
Single cause
Anecdote
50. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Hasty generalization
Division
Ethos
Ad vericundium