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