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