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