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