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