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