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