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