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