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