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