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