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