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