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