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