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