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