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