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