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