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