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)
Circular Reasoning
Irrelevant Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Special pleading
2. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Genetic Fallacy
Straw man
False analogy
3. 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.
Appeal to Authority
Opinion
Either -or
Fact
4. 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!'
Either -or
Ad misericordia
False scenario
Deductive Reasoning
5. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
False scenario
Stereotyping
Either-or Reasoning
Either -or
6. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
False scenario
Vagueness
Oversimplification
Hasty generalization
7. 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?
Red herring
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
8. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Slippery slope
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
9. 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.
Cause-effect relationships
Ad vericundium
Correlation as cause
Equivocation
10. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Anecdote
Ad misericordia
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
11. Appeal to reason
Negative Proof
Circular Reasoning
Slippery slope
Logos
12. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Slippery slope
Fact
Dog whistle
Hasty generalization
13. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Statistic
Genetic Fallacy
Dog whistle
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
14. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
False scenario
Composition
Ad misericordia
Hasty generalization
15. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Double standard
Special pleading
Appeal to Authority
Nonsequiter
16. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Genetic Fallacy
Numbers
Slippery Slope
Double standard
17. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Pathos
Dog whistle
Red herring
Cause-effect relationships
18. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Logos
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Oversimplification
19. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Irrelevant Proof
Red herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False authority
20. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Logos
Prevalent Proof
Appeal to the golden mean
Undistributed Middle
21. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Division
False analogy
Ethos
22. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
False scenario
Hasty generalization
Special pleading
23. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Division
Straw man
Genetic Fallacy
24. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Red Herring
Begging the question
Equivocation
Division
25. Information that can be objectively proven as true
False scenario
Single cause
Fact
Red Herring
26. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad populum
27. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Slippery Slope
False authority
Stereotyping
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
28. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Straw man
Either -or
False analogy
Equivocation
29. 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 populum
Composition
Correlation as cause
False authority
30. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Ad hominem
31. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Hasty generalization
Values
Single cause
Appeal to Authority
32. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Slippery slope
False analogy
Vagueness
33. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Slippery Slope
Ad hominem
Statistic
Red Herring
34. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Dog whistle
Special pleading
False analogy
35. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Irrelevant Proof
Prevalent Proof
Oversimplification
Red herring
36. 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
Double standard
Logos
Anecdote
37. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Equivocation
38. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Slippery Slope
Pathos
Inductive Reasoning
Single cause
39. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Ad vericundium
Logos
Composition
Either -or
40. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Prevalent Proof
Numbers
Cause-effect relationships
Anecdote
41. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Prevalent Proof
Hasty generalization
Cause-effect relationships
Opinion
42. 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'
Composition
Equivocation
Undistributed Middle
Appeal to the golden mean
43. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Smoke screen
Ad vericundium
Circular Reasoning
Oversimplification
44. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Equivocation
Negative Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Statistic
45. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Stereotyping
Statistic
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Straw man
46. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Numbers
False scenario
Equivocation
47. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Equivocation
48. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Pathos
Nonsequiter
Deductive Reasoning
Opinion
49. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Circular Reasoning
Stereotyping
Ad vericundium
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
50. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Either -or
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Stereotyping