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