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