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