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