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