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