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