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