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