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