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