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