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