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. 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!'
False scenario
Cause-effect relationships
Smoke screen
Special pleading
2. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
False authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Slippery Slope
Prevalent Proof
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.'
Fact
Logos
Ad hominem
Values
4. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Nonsequiter
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty generalization
Opinion
5. 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
Cause-effect relationships
Composition
Dog whistle
6. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Oversimplification
Prevalent Proof
7. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to Authority
8. 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 Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Cause-effect relationships
Undistributed Middle
9. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Equivocation
Ad populum
Fact
Division
10. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Circular Reasoning
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
11. 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.
Straw man
Hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False authority
12. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Ad vericundium
Slippery slope
Values
False analogy
13. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Vagueness
Composition
Oversimplification
Inductive Reasoning
14. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Slippery slope
Dog whistle
Hasty generalization
Numbers
15. 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.
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Equivocation
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
16. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Numbers
False analogy
Slippery Slope
Either -or
17. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Deductive Reasoning
Smoke screen
Negative Proof
False authority
18. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Ad vericundium
Negative Proof
Statistic
Double standard
19. Appeal to reason
Cause-effect relationships
Equivocation
Logos
Circular Reasoning
20. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Division
Inductive Reasoning
Numbers
21. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Nonsequiter
Ad misericordia
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
22. 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
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Correlation as cause
Double standard
23. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Composition
Smoke screen
Single cause
24. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Ad populum
Either -or
Logos
Appeal to Authority
25. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Slippery Slope
Ad hominem
Dog whistle
26. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Begging the question
False scenario
Straw man
Smoke screen
27. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Negative Proof
Correlation as cause
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
28. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Composition
Stereotyping
Ad hominem
False scenario
29. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Ad vericundium
Dog whistle
Red Herring
30. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Begging the question
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Straw man
31. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Cause-effect relationships
Deductive Reasoning
Vagueness
Appeal to the golden mean
32. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Ad vericundium
Negative Proof
Equivocation
Stereotyping
33. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Ad vericundium
Anecdote
Begging the question
Red herring
34. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Hasty generalization
Begging the question
Cause-effect relationships
Anecdote
35. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Appeal to Authority
Ad hominem
Statistic
36. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Opinion
Prevalent Proof
Red Herring
False authority
37. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Begging the question
Single cause
Prevalent Proof
38. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Ad hominem
Hasty generalization
Cause-effect relationships
39. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Cause-effect relationships
Anecdote
Double standard
Smoke screen
40. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
False authority
Irrelevant Proof
Division
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
Values
Ad hominem
Division
42. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Opinion
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad misericordia
Circular Reasoning
43. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Prevalent Proof
Special pleading
Correlation as cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
44. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Stereotyping
Equivocation
Vagueness
45. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Appeal to Authority
Numbers
Genetic Fallacy
46. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Hasty generalization
Values
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Stereotyping
47. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Opinion
Anecdote
Single cause
Circular Reasoning
48. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Undistributed Middle
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Prevalent Proof
Red Herring
49. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Pathos
False scenario
50. 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.
Undistributed Middle
Pathos
Dog whistle
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison