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