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