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