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