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