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