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