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