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