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