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