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