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