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