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