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