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