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