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