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