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