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