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