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