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