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