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