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