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