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