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