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