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