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