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