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