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