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?
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Nonsequiter
2. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Red herring
Single cause
Oversimplification
Special pleading
3. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Ad hominem
Stereotyping
Appeal to Authority
Straw man
4. 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
Hasty generalization
Ethos
5. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Values
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Division
6. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Either -or
Cause-effect relationships
Double standard
Fact
7. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Statistic
Special pleading
8. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Either -or
Straw man
Smoke screen
9. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Begging the question
Deductive Reasoning
Negative Proof
Appeal to Authority
10. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Logos
Pathos
Values
Red herring
11. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Numbers
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Vagueness
12. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Circular Reasoning
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
13. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Fact
False authority
Either -or
Dog whistle
14. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Either -or
Opinion
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Equivocation
15. Appeal to reason
Logos
Anecdote
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
16. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Circular Reasoning
Special pleading
Red Herring
Equivocation
17. 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.
Red herring
Single cause
False authority
Appeal to Authority
18. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Ad hominem
Either-or Reasoning
Statistic
Genetic Fallacy
19. 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!'
Red Herring
Opinion
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
20. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Dog whistle
Ad vericundium
Circular Reasoning
Anecdote
21. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Equivocation
Ad hominem
Values
Undistributed Middle
22. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Ad vericundium
Smoke screen
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
23. 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.
False scenario
Negative Proof
Special pleading
Equivocation
24. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Appeal to the golden mean
Numbers
Undistributed Middle
Either -or
25. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
26. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Negative Proof
Hasty generalization
Single cause
27. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Red Herring
Ethos
Logos
Either -or
28. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Prevalent Proof
Slippery Slope
Genetic Fallacy
Circular Reasoning
29. 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'
Hasty generalization
Double standard
Circular Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
30. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Values
Ad vericundium
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Stereotyping
31. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Pathos
Ad hominem
Undistributed Middle
32. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
False authority
Begging the question
Anecdote
Ethos
33. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Genetic Fallacy
Double standard
Cause-effect relationships
Negative Proof
34. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Ad vericundium
Prevalent Proof
Oversimplification
Nonsequiter
35. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Division
Either-or Reasoning
Fact
Vagueness
36. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Undistributed Middle
Circular Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
37. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Pathos
Composition
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
38. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Oversimplification
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Deductive Reasoning
39. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Smoke screen
Anecdote
False authority
40. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Straw man
Fact
Numbers
Negative Proof
41. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Anecdote
Negative Proof
Logos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
42. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Red herring
Irrelevant Proof
Composition
Inductive Reasoning
43. 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?
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Correlation as cause
Irrelevant Proof
44. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Inductive Reasoning
Red herring
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
45. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Genetic Fallacy
Ad misericordia
Vagueness
Ethos
46. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Pathos
False analogy
Division
Vagueness
47. 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
Equivocation
Cause-effect relationships
Correlation as cause
Undistributed Middle
48. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Logos
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Correlation as cause
Hasty generalization
49. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Slippery slope
Logos
Division
Ad populum
50. 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
Dog whistle
Vagueness
False authority