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