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