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