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