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