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