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