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