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