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