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