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