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