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