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