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