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