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