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