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