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