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