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