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