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