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