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