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