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