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