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