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