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