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