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