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