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