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. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Dog whistle
Vagueness
Begging the question
2. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
3. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Smoke screen
False scenario
Inductive Reasoning
4. 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!'
Opinion
False scenario
Dog whistle
Red Herring
5. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Prevalent Proof
6. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Double standard
Numbers
Red Herring
Ad populum
7. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Values
Equivocation
Either-or Reasoning
Smoke screen
8. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Begging the question
Special pleading
9. 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?
Deductive Reasoning
Equivocation
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Composition
10. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Negative Proof
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
11. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False authority
Straw man
Either -or
Ad vericundium
12. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Straw man
Irrelevant Proof
Undistributed Middle
13. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
False analogy
Logos
Slippery Slope
Values
14. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Either -or
Numbers
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Division
15. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Red herring
Circular Reasoning
Ethos
Inductive Reasoning
16. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Pathos
Undistributed Middle
Oversimplification
Double standard
17. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Ad populum
Stereotyping
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
18. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
False analogy
Begging the question
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery slope
19. 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.'
Ad vericundium
Ad hominem
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Fact
20. 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.
Dog whistle
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Inductive Reasoning
21. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Undistributed Middle
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery Slope
Ad populum
22. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ethos
Hasty generalization
Deductive Reasoning
23. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Undistributed Middle
Straw man
Double standard
24. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Anecdote
Genetic Fallacy
25. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Straw man
Vagueness
Ad hominem
Appeal to the golden mean
26. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Genetic Fallacy
Equivocation
Pathos
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
27. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Genetic Fallacy
Single cause
Red herring
28. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad misericordia
Ad hominem
Fact
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.
Equivocation
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Hasty generalization
Hasty generalization
30. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad hominem
Ad populum
Undistributed Middle
Statistic
31. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Single cause
Hasty generalization
Negative Proof
32. Appeal to reason
Ad hominem
Logos
Irrelevant Proof
Ad vericundium
33. 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.
Circular Reasoning
Dog whistle
Ad hominem
Irrelevant Proof
34. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Appeal to the golden mean
Either -or
Prevalent Proof
35. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
False authority
Vagueness
Either -or
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
36. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Red herring
Irrelevant Proof
Circular Reasoning
False scenario
37. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Appeal to Authority
Red Herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
38. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Negative Proof
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Division
39. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Appeal to the golden mean
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False authority
Ad vericundium
40. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Slippery slope
Begging the question
Ad hominem
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
41. 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
Slippery slope
Red Herring
Statistic
42. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery slope
Fact
Numbers
43. 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.
Opinion
Appeal to Authority
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
44. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Hasty generalization
Undistributed Middle
Negative Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
45. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Correlation as cause
Opinion
False authority
Values
46. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Fact
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
47. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Appeal to the golden mean
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False analogy
Anecdote
48. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Inductive Reasoning
Red herring
Ad vericundium
Undistributed Middle
49. Information that can be objectively proven as true
False authority
Either -or
Fact
Straw man
50. 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
Vagueness
Anecdote
Genetic Fallacy