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