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