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