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