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