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