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