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