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