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