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