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