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