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