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