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