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