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