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