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. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Vagueness
Inductive Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
Oversimplification
2. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Stereotyping
Nonsequiter
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
3. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Genetic Fallacy
Logos
False analogy
4. 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!'
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Division
False scenario
5. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Hasty generalization
Either -or
Slippery slope
Single cause
6. 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
Ad populum
Correlation as cause
Inductive Reasoning
Vagueness
7. 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.
Genetic Fallacy
Straw man
Special pleading
Red Herring
8. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Begging the question
Numbers
Slippery slope
Statistic
9. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Appeal to the golden mean
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Oversimplification
10. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Oversimplification
Ad misericordia
Single cause
Negative Proof
11. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Double standard
Either-or Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
Equivocation
12. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Correlation as cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
Special pleading
13. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Straw man
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
14. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Either -or
Double standard
False analogy
Division
15. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Fact
16. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Dog whistle
Ethos
17. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Single cause
Cause-effect relationships
Oversimplification
18. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Special pleading
Values
Hasty generalization
19. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Cause-effect relationships
Straw man
Nonsequiter
Stereotyping
20. 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.'
Anecdote
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad hominem
21. 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.
Statistic
Genetic Fallacy
Dog whistle
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
22. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Slippery Slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Statistic
Red Herring
23. 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.
Vagueness
Double standard
Appeal to the golden mean
Appeal to Authority
24. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Prevalent Proof
Inductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
25. 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
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Vagueness
26. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Smoke screen
Single cause
Composition
Appeal to the golden mean
27. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Equivocation
Division
Vagueness
28. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Anecdote
Values
Appeal to the golden mean
Pathos
29. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Red Herring
Composition
30. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Pathos
Either-or Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
Red Herring
31. 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
Numbers
Double standard
Undistributed Middle
32. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Red herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Nonsequiter
33. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Smoke screen
Opinion
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Appeal to the golden mean
34. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Single cause
Appeal to Authority
Anecdote
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
35. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Either -or
Equivocation
Double standard
Circular Reasoning
36. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False analogy
Hasty generalization
Pathos
37. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Red herring
False analogy
Inductive Reasoning
38. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Genetic Fallacy
Nonsequiter
Circular Reasoning
Slippery Slope
39. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Ad vericundium
Cause-effect relationships
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
40. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
False authority
Single cause
Stereotyping
41. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Genetic Fallacy
False scenario
Equivocation
Slippery Slope
42. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Stereotyping
Appeal to the golden mean
Irrelevant Proof
False scenario
43. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery Slope
Inductive Reasoning
44. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Double standard
Vagueness
Ad hominem
Anecdote
45. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Smoke screen
Either-or Reasoning
Prevalent Proof
46. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Vagueness
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Composition
47. Information that can be objectively proven as true
False authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Fact
Smoke screen
48. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Hasty generalization
Ad populum
Either -or
Special pleading
49. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Genetic Fallacy
Either -or
Ad vericundium
Negative Proof
50. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Values
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Circular Reasoning