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