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