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