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