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