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