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