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