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