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