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