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