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