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