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