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