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