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