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