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. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Circular Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
Ad misericordia
Logos
2. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Equivocation
Special pleading
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
3. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Special pleading
False authority
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
4. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Undistributed Middle
False scenario
Logos
5. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Division
Ad vericundium
Deductive Reasoning
6. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Irrelevant Proof
Slippery slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to the golden mean
7. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Vagueness
Negative Proof
Smoke screen
Statistic
8. 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!'
Straw man
False authority
False scenario
Ad hominem
9. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Opinion
Equivocation
Logos
Division
10. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Inductive Reasoning
Ad hominem
Vagueness
Statistic
11. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Hasty generalization
Division
Oversimplification
Straw man
12. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
False analogy
Either -or
Slippery Slope
Statistic
13. 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 populum
Slippery slope
Ad hominem
Pathos
14. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False authority
Values
Dog whistle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
15. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ad hominem
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Ethos
16. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Deductive Reasoning
Special pleading
Stereotyping
Ad hominem
17. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Irrelevant Proof
Nonsequiter
18. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Single cause
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Inductive Reasoning
19. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Straw man
Anecdote
Deductive Reasoning
Circular Reasoning
20. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Double standard
Ethos
Numbers
Ad populum
21. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Undistributed Middle
Anecdote
Hasty generalization
Fact
22. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Division
Ad populum
Nonsequiter
23. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Begging the question
Nonsequiter
Circular Reasoning
Fact
24. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Genetic Fallacy
Ad vericundium
Pathos
Red herring
25. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Logos
Slippery slope
Ad populum
Values
26. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Genetic Fallacy
Negative Proof
Red Herring
Appeal to the golden mean
27. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Circular Reasoning
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
28. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Straw man
Dog whistle
Double standard
29. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Equivocation
Hasty generalization
Ad vericundium
Red Herring
30. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad hominem
Fact
Double standard
31. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
Division
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
32. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Composition
Hasty generalization
Ethos
33. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Single cause
Circular Reasoning
Composition
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
34. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Negative Proof
Fact
Division
35. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Division
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
False authority
36. 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
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Smoke screen
False scenario
37. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Smoke screen
Single cause
Equivocation
Dog whistle
38. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Ad hominem
Red herring
Double standard
False analogy
39. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Statistic
Pathos
Slippery slope
Hasty generalization
40. Appeal to reason
Inductive Reasoning
Logos
Hasty generalization
Straw man
41. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Ad hominem
Circular Reasoning
False analogy
Irrelevant Proof
42. 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
Composition
Opinion
False scenario
43. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Smoke screen
44. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Undistributed Middle
Negative Proof
Equivocation
Prevalent Proof
45. 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'
Inductive Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
Anecdote
Single cause
46. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Genetic Fallacy
Undistributed Middle
Equivocation
Hasty generalization
47. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Vagueness
Double standard
Circular Reasoning
48. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Negative Proof
Special pleading
Straw man
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.
Double standard
Either-or Reasoning
Logos
Equivocation
50. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Division