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