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