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. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
Hasty generalization
Ad misericordia
2. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Cause-effect relationships
Logos
Numbers
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
3. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Red herring
Numbers
Hasty generalization
Values
4. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad vericundium
Dog whistle
5. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Equivocation
Statistic
Vagueness
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
6. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Appeal to the golden mean
Straw man
Genetic Fallacy
Prevalent Proof
7. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Double standard
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty generalization
Single cause
8. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Prevalent Proof
9. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Red herring
Deductive Reasoning
Composition
10. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Inductive Reasoning
Vagueness
Either-or Reasoning
Pathos
11. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Slippery slope
Stereotyping
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
12. 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'
Numbers
Equivocation
Undistributed Middle
False scenario
13. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Nonsequiter
False analogy
Division
14. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Stereotyping
Special pleading
Ethos
Opinion
15. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Stereotyping
Fact
Negative Proof
Cause-effect relationships
16. 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 Generalization
Smoke screen
Anecdote
17. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Anecdote
Slippery Slope
Ad misericordia
Cause-effect relationships
18. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Begging the question
19. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery slope
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
20. 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.
Opinion
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to Authority
Dog whistle
21. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False authority
Ad hominem
Ad vericundium
22. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False authority
Inductive Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
23. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Composition
Ad misericordia
Genetic Fallacy
Either -or
24. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
False scenario
Ad populum
Deductive Reasoning
Vagueness
25. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Appeal to the golden mean
Equivocation
Anecdote
Slippery Slope
26. Appeal to reason
Composition
False analogy
Logos
Slippery slope
27. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Double standard
Composition
Circular Reasoning
28. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Correlation as cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
29. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Vagueness
False authority
Red Herring
Ad populum
30. 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.'
Either-or Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Double standard
Ad hominem
31. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Correlation as cause
Ad hominem
Irrelevant Proof
Double standard
32. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Cause-effect relationships
Either-or Reasoning
Negative Proof
Inductive Reasoning
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.
Circular Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
Ad hominem
Anecdote
34. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Circular Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Fact
Equivocation
35. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False authority
Appeal to Authority
Inductive Reasoning
False analogy
36. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
False scenario
Cause-effect relationships
Stereotyping
37. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Ad hominem
Prevalent Proof
Slippery slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
38. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Hasty generalization
Dog whistle
Nonsequiter
Negative Proof
39. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Equivocation
Fact
Ad hominem
40. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Slippery slope
Anecdote
Either -or
41. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Either-or Reasoning
Opinion
Values
Ad hominem
42. 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.
Oversimplification
Straw man
Either -or
Begging the question
43. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Cause-effect relationships
Ad vericundium
Vagueness
Single cause
44. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Opinion
Ethos
Circular Reasoning
45. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Irrelevant Proof
Negative Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
46. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Undistributed Middle
Numbers
Red Herring
47. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
Division
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
48. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Slippery Slope
Red herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Correlation as cause
49. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Prevalent Proof
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
50. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False analogy
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority