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