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