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