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