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