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