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. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Genetic Fallacy
Negative Proof
Composition
2. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Ad misericordia
Nonsequiter
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
3. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Appeal to the golden mean
Ad vericundium
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Red Herring
4. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Appeal to the golden mean
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
5. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Logos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Equivocation
6. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Slippery Slope
Undistributed Middle
7. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Logos
Irrelevant Proof
Values
Smoke screen
8. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Logos
Slippery slope
Pathos
Oversimplification
9. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Equivocation
False authority
Inductive Reasoning
Single cause
10. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
False scenario
Either -or
Stereotyping
11. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Fact
Appeal to Authority
Double standard
12. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Values
Red herring
False analogy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
13. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Values
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
14. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Stereotyping
Red herring
Values
Numbers
15. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Either -or
Fact
Ad hominem
16. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Statistic
Deductive Reasoning
Values
Oversimplification
17. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Opinion
False authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
18. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Hasty generalization
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Stereotyping
19. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Either -or
False scenario
Equivocation
20. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
Oversimplification
21. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Ethos
Ad populum
Oversimplification
Statistic
22. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Fact
Opinion
Single cause
Ad hominem
23. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Equivocation
Composition
Nonsequiter
Ad hominem
24. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Deductive Reasoning
Statistic
Straw man
25. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Double standard
Appeal to Authority
Pathos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
26. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Smoke screen
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
27. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Stereotyping
False scenario
Vagueness
Statistic
28. 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.'
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
False scenario
29. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Genetic Fallacy
Stereotyping
Ad vericundium
Either-or Reasoning
30. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Red herring
31. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Genetic Fallacy
False analogy
Pathos
32. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Hasty generalization
Ad vericundium
Dog whistle
Oversimplification
33. 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!'
Prevalent Proof
Red herring
Smoke screen
False scenario
34. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ethos
35. 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.
Composition
Dog whistle
Ethos
Prevalent Proof
36. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Statistic
Equivocation
Nonsequiter
Negative Proof
37. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Dog whistle
Cause-effect relationships
Prevalent Proof
Ad populum
38. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Opinion
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Values
Red Herring
39. 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
Oversimplification
Begging the question
Correlation as cause
False authority
40. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Genetic Fallacy
Circular Reasoning
Ad vericundium
Irrelevant Proof
41. 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?
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
42. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
False scenario
Straw man
Genetic Fallacy
Ad misericordia
43. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Ad hominem
Prevalent Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to the golden mean
44. Appeal to reason
Logos
Slippery Slope
Ad misericordia
Appeal to Authority
45. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Slippery slope
Double standard
Pathos
Irrelevant Proof
46. 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.
Stereotyping
Ethos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Equivocation
47. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Appeal to Authority
Ethos
False scenario
Correlation as cause
48. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Red herring
False authority
Red Herring
Equivocation
49. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Irrelevant Proof
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
50. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
False scenario
Single cause
Smoke screen
Correlation as cause