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