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