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