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