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