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