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