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. 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?
Special pleading
False analogy
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Oversimplification
2. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Deductive Reasoning
Circular Reasoning
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
3. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Hasty generalization
Single cause
False authority
Ad hominem
4. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Ad hominem
Slippery Slope
Ethos
Ad hominem
5. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Negative Proof
Ethos
Double standard
Composition
6. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Dog whistle
Cause-effect relationships
Hasty generalization
7. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Undistributed Middle
Pathos
False authority
Either -or
8. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Ethos
False analogy
Stereotyping
Composition
9. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Numbers
Pathos
Values
Stereotyping
10. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Appeal to the golden mean
Either-or Reasoning
Single cause
Special pleading
11. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Pathos
Genetic Fallacy
Equivocation
False authority
12. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Dog whistle
Irrelevant Proof
Begging the question
13. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Hasty generalization
Ethos
Irrelevant Proof
14. 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!'
Ad populum
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
False scenario
Slippery slope
15. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Logos
Statistic
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
16. Appeal to reason
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Slippery Slope
Logos
17. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
Special pleading
Ad vericundium
18. 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.
Pathos
Dog whistle
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
19. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Prevalent Proof
Logos
Appeal to the golden mean
Either -or
20. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Logos
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ethos
21. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Appeal to Authority
Undistributed Middle
Composition
Inductive Reasoning
22. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
False scenario
Appeal to Authority
Hasty generalization
Logos
23. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Special pleading
Prevalent Proof
Correlation as cause
Division
24. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Vagueness
Hasty generalization
False analogy
Red Herring
25. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Anecdote
Single cause
Opinion
Irrelevant Proof
26. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Ad misericordia
Pathos
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
27. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Inductive Reasoning
Double standard
28. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Logos
Slippery slope
Inductive Reasoning
Equivocation
29. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Equivocation
Nonsequiter
Appeal to the golden mean
Ad misericordia
30. 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
Inductive Reasoning
Either -or
Ethos
Correlation as cause
31. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Numbers
Double standard
Cause-effect relationships
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
32. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad hominem
33. 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.
Ethos
Equivocation
Values
Pathos
34. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Irrelevant Proof
Dog whistle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
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.
Numbers
Appeal to Authority
Pathos
Hasty generalization
36. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Ethos
Anecdote
37. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Begging the question
Negative Proof
Either-or Reasoning
38. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Either-or Reasoning
Irrelevant Proof
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
39. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Genetic Fallacy
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad populum
40. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Values
False authority
Dog whistle
Smoke screen
41. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Slippery Slope
Either -or
Numbers
False analogy
42. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Stereotyping
Special pleading
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
43. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Ad populum
Smoke screen
Double standard
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
44. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad hominem
Ad misericordia
Slippery Slope
Double standard
45. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Either-or Reasoning
Opinion
Nonsequiter
46. 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'
Pathos
Undistributed Middle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Irrelevant Proof
47. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Oversimplification
False scenario
Stereotyping
Single cause
48. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Red herring
Appeal to the golden mean
Logos
Pathos
49. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Slippery slope
Either-or Reasoning
Either -or
50. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Pathos
Ad hominem
Appeal to Authority
Composition