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