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