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