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