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