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