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