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