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