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