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