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