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