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