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: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Equivocation
Numbers
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
2. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Values
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
3. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Hasty generalization
Stereotyping
Anecdote
Smoke screen
4. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Special pleading
Negative Proof
Composition
Ethos
5. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Double standard
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Vagueness
6. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty generalization
Fact
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
7. 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
Composition
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Undistributed Middle
8. 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
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
9. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Pathos
Values
Slippery slope
Logos
10. 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.
Straw man
False analogy
Hasty generalization
Dog whistle
11. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad vericundium
Begging the question
Double standard
12. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
False analogy
Single cause
Appeal to the golden mean
Double standard
13. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Appeal to Authority
Smoke screen
Anecdote
Logos
14. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Ad vericundium
Genetic Fallacy
Negative Proof
Prevalent Proof
15. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ethos
Appeal to the golden mean
16. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Inductive Reasoning
17. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Fact
False authority
Statistic
Logos
18. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Dog whistle
Prevalent Proof
Slippery slope
19. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
False analogy
Undistributed Middle
20. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Fact
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False analogy
21. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Nonsequiter
Dog whistle
22. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Inductive Reasoning
Composition
Begging the question
Ad populum
23. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Logos
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Appeal to the golden mean
24. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Either -or
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Equivocation
25. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Negative Proof
False authority
Circular Reasoning
26. 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.'
Double standard
Special pleading
Ad hominem
Dog whistle
27. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Either -or
Equivocation
Pathos
28. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
False scenario
Either-or Reasoning
Ethos
Inductive Reasoning
29. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Cause-effect relationships
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
30. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Special pleading
Stereotyping
Ad vericundium
31. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Inductive Reasoning
Slippery slope
False authority
Correlation as cause
32. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Cause-effect relationships
Smoke screen
False authority
Hasty generalization
33. 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
Smoke screen
Correlation as cause
Cause-effect relationships
Begging the question
34. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Opinion
False analogy
Equivocation
Pathos
35. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False analogy
Inductive Reasoning
Composition
36. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Cause-effect relationships
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Equivocation
37. 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
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
38. 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 Comparison
Numbers
Division
Deductive Reasoning
39. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Double standard
Red Herring
Logos
40. 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.
Inductive Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad hominem
Appeal to Authority
41. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Equivocation
Circular Reasoning
Numbers
42. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Logos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Composition
43. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
False scenario
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Oversimplification
44. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Fact
Opinion
Deductive Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
45. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Opinion
Hasty generalization
Single cause
Ad hominem
46. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Slippery Slope
Hasty generalization
Values
Pathos
47. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Ethos
Circular Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Red Herring
48. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Ad populum
Inductive Reasoning
Numbers
49. 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
Correlation as cause
Ad hominem
Logos
50. Appeal to reason
Ad populum
Logos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Stereotyping