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