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