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