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. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Smoke screen
Pathos
Appeal to Authority
2. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Division
Stereotyping
Ad misericordia
3. 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.
Cause-effect relationships
Appeal to Authority
Deductive Reasoning
Vagueness
4. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Red herring
Either -or
Irrelevant Proof
5. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Logos
Deductive Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
Irrelevant Proof
6. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Negative Proof
Red Herring
Equivocation
Hasty generalization
7. 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
False authority
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
8. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Single cause
Appeal to the golden mean
Division
9. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
Double standard
Straw man
Either -or
10. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Red Herring
Begging the question
Division
11. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Opinion
Equivocation
Nonsequiter
12. 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
Inductive Reasoning
Numbers
Undistributed Middle
13. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Red Herring
Fact
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
14. 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?
Ad vericundium
Genetic Fallacy
Logos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
15. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Ad misericordia
Stereotyping
Single cause
Appeal to the golden mean
16. 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.
Inductive Reasoning
Equivocation
Deductive Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
17. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Undistributed Middle
Ethos
Nonsequiter
Oversimplification
18. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Either-or Reasoning
Dog whistle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False scenario
19. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Circular Reasoning
Ad vericundium
Begging the question
Logos
20. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Red herring
Stereotyping
Ad hominem
21. 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'
Prevalent Proof
Undistributed Middle
Logos
Vagueness
22. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Genetic Fallacy
Double standard
23. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Straw man
Logos
Deductive Reasoning
Equivocation
24. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
False analogy
Ad vericundium
Ethos
Deductive Reasoning
25. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Begging the question
Ad populum
Genetic Fallacy
26. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Smoke screen
Opinion
Begging the question
Slippery Slope
27. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Negative Proof
Equivocation
Ad hominem
False authority
28. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Nonsequiter
False authority
Slippery slope
29. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Dog whistle
Correlation as cause
Slippery slope
Appeal to the golden mean
30. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Ad populum
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Negative Proof
31. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Smoke screen
Ad hominem
Fact
Special pleading
32. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Oversimplification
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Opinion
33. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Pathos
Appeal to the golden mean
Smoke screen
34. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Hasty generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Ad populum
35. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Composition
Numbers
Pathos
Double standard
36. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Statistic
Dog whistle
Either -or
Stereotyping
37. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Slippery Slope
Single cause
Red herring
Straw man
38. 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.'
Ad hominem
Special pleading
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False analogy
39. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Inductive Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Equivocation
Smoke screen
40. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Smoke screen
Opinion
Hasty generalization
Slippery Slope
41. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Equivocation
Prevalent Proof
Genetic Fallacy
Red Herring
42. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Ad populum
Composition
Values
Straw man
43. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Red herring
Begging the question
Nonsequiter
Pathos
44. Appeal to reason
Logos
Special pleading
Equivocation
Statistic
45. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Stereotyping
Fact
Double standard
Pathos
46. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Straw man
Dog whistle
Anecdote
Smoke screen
47. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
False authority
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Anecdote
48. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Red Herring
Hasty generalization
Nonsequiter
Cause-effect relationships
49. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Composition
Negative Proof
Deductive Reasoning
Slippery slope
50. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Fact
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values