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. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Genetic Fallacy
Nonsequiter
Inductive Reasoning
Special pleading
2. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Circular Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Dog whistle
Either-or Reasoning
3. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Vagueness
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
4. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Division
False authority
Logos
Red Herring
5. 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.
Undistributed Middle
Ad populum
Logos
Equivocation
6. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Red herring
Cause-effect relationships
False analogy
Nonsequiter
7. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Anecdote
Deductive Reasoning
Numbers
Either-or Reasoning
8. Appeal to reason
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Numbers
Logos
Vagueness
9. 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
Fact
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
10. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Logos
Ethos
Equivocation
False analogy
11. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Appeal to Authority
Composition
Pathos
Single cause
12. 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
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Straw man
Composition
13. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Slippery slope
Circular Reasoning
Double standard
Prevalent Proof
14. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Opinion
Pathos
Double standard
15. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Equivocation
Vagueness
Slippery slope
Red Herring
16. 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!'
Red herring
False scenario
False analogy
Negative Proof
17. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Genetic Fallacy
18. 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.
Logos
Smoke screen
Numbers
Straw man
19. 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
Pathos
Stereotyping
Dog whistle
20. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Ad populum
Statistic
Negative Proof
Begging the question
21. 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.'
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad hominem
Special pleading
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
22. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Circular Reasoning
Vagueness
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Slippery Slope
23. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False analogy
Correlation as cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
24. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False scenario
Appeal to Authority
Oversimplification
25. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Circular Reasoning
Begging the question
26. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Opinion
Straw man
Genetic Fallacy
Special pleading
27. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Red herring
Negative Proof
Either-or Reasoning
Slippery slope
28. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Dog whistle
Hasty generalization
Circular Reasoning
Nonsequiter
29. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Appeal to Authority
Division
Pathos
30. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Red herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Cause-effect relationships
Composition
31. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Pathos
Red herring
Hasty generalization
Appeal to the golden mean
32. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Appeal to Authority
Stereotyping
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Irrelevant Proof
33. 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
Ad misericordia
Equivocation
Irrelevant Proof
34. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Pathos
Red herring
Ad populum
35. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Pathos
Nonsequiter
Oversimplification
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
36. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Nonsequiter
Undistributed Middle
Statistic
Ethos
37. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
False analogy
Double standard
Correlation as cause
False scenario
38. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Correlation as cause
Composition
39. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Smoke screen
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Red Herring
40. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Appeal to the golden mean
Ad populum
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Straw man
41. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Ad misericordia
Dog whistle
Slippery slope
Composition
42. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Stereotyping
Cause-effect relationships
Anecdote
43. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
44. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Negative Proof
Composition
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
False authority
45. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Red herring
46. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Irrelevant Proof
Pathos
Single cause
Genetic Fallacy
47. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Deductive Reasoning
Pathos
48. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Single cause
Slippery slope
Vagueness
Undistributed Middle
49. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Negative Proof
Deductive Reasoning
50. 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'
Oversimplification
Undistributed Middle
False scenario
Opinion