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