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