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