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