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