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. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Dog whistle
Genetic Fallacy
Appeal to Authority
Double standard
2. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Nonsequiter
Fact
Vagueness
Deductive Reasoning
3. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Red Herring
Irrelevant Proof
Stereotyping
Ad vericundium
4. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Straw man
Stereotyping
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
5. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Either-or Reasoning
Composition
Anecdote
False authority
6. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Fact
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
7. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Ad hominem
Pathos
Dog whistle
8. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Prevalent Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False authority
9. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Dog whistle
Hasty generalization
Either -or
Slippery slope
10. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad misericordia
Special pleading
False authority
Ad hominem
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
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
12. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Anecdote
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Logos
Equivocation
13. 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.
Circular Reasoning
Equivocation
Double standard
Hasty generalization
14. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Negative Proof
Red Herring
Either-or Reasoning
False analogy
15. Appeal to reason
Nonsequiter
Red herring
Equivocation
Logos
16. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Straw man
Opinion
17. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Negative Proof
Logos
Double standard
Genetic Fallacy
18. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Opinion
Smoke screen
False scenario
Oversimplification
19. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Ethos
Appeal to Authority
Equivocation
Red Herring
20. 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
Straw man
False authority
Ad misericordia
21. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either-or Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
22. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Ad vericundium
Cause-effect relationships
Either-or Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
23. 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.
Single cause
Dog whistle
Statistic
Pathos
24. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Red Herring
Ethos
Slippery Slope
Oversimplification
25. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Vagueness
Oversimplification
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Correlation as cause
26. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Pathos
Nonsequiter
Either -or
Cause-effect relationships
27. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
False analogy
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Irrelevant Proof
28. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Red Herring
Prevalent Proof
Deductive Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
29. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Vagueness
Irrelevant Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Begging the question
30. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Fact
Prevalent Proof
Composition
31. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Cause-effect relationships
False authority
Values
Composition
32. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Cause-effect relationships
Ad populum
Ethos
Vagueness
33. 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?
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Ad hominem
Cause-effect relationships
34. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Inductive Reasoning
Dog whistle
Pathos
35. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Hasty generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Ad vericundium
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
36. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Logos
37. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Opinion
Either-or Reasoning
38. 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!'
Red herring
Prevalent Proof
False scenario
Deductive Reasoning
39. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Either -or
False analogy
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
40. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Ad hominem
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Negative Proof
Opinion
41. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Single cause
Red herring
Correlation as cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
42. 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
Red Herring
Correlation as cause
Stereotyping
43. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
False scenario
Ad hominem
Special pleading
Double standard
44. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Slippery slope
Appeal to Authority
Negative Proof
Single cause
45. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Hasty generalization
Ad populum
Red herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
46. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Equivocation
Anecdote
Special pleading
47. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Hasty generalization
Statistic
Nonsequiter
Ad populum
48. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Appeal to the golden mean
Double standard
Circular Reasoning
Pathos
49. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Cause-effect relationships
Straw man
50. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad populum
Slippery slope
Equivocation
Ad misericordia