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