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