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