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