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