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