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