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