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