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