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