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