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