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