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