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