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. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Hasty generalization
Double standard
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Values
2. 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!'
Red herring
Ad vericundium
False scenario
Dog whistle
3. 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
Ad populum
Hasty generalization
Vagueness
4. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Ethos
Deductive Reasoning
Red Herring
Double standard
5. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Negative Proof
Pathos
Nonsequiter
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
6. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False authority
Inductive Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
Numbers
7. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
False analogy
Appeal to Authority
Ethos
Special pleading
8. 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?
Inductive Reasoning
Values
Slippery slope
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
9. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Pathos
Negative Proof
Values
Red Herring
10. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Ethos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to Authority
Nonsequiter
11. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Red Herring
False authority
Circular Reasoning
Equivocation
12. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Statistic
Prevalent Proof
Ad hominem
Correlation as cause
13. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Opinion
Hasty generalization
Division
False authority
14. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Either -or
Either-or Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Genetic Fallacy
15. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Negative Proof
Equivocation
False authority
Anecdote
16. 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.
False scenario
Equivocation
Stereotyping
Cause-effect relationships
17. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Genetic Fallacy
Single cause
Stereotyping
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
18. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Stereotyping
Deductive Reasoning
Straw man
19. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Prevalent Proof
Anecdote
False analogy
Either -or
20. 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.
Prevalent Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to Authority
Logos
21. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False scenario
Ethos
22. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Slippery slope
Circular Reasoning
Oversimplification
23. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Genetic Fallacy
Ad misericordia
Division
Dog whistle
24. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Genetic Fallacy
Ad vericundium
25. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Pathos
Smoke screen
Cause-effect relationships
26. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Slippery Slope
Pathos
Ad populum
27. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Undistributed Middle
Slippery slope
Genetic Fallacy
Smoke screen
28. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Ad misericordia
Genetic Fallacy
Nonsequiter
Correlation as cause
29. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Anecdote
Genetic Fallacy
False analogy
Nonsequiter
30. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Negative Proof
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
False scenario
31. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Double standard
Ad vericundium
Circular Reasoning
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
32. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Equivocation
False analogy
False scenario
Cause-effect relationships
33. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Slippery Slope
Stereotyping
False analogy
False scenario
34. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Either-or Reasoning
Double standard
Negative Proof
Hasty generalization
35. 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.'
Logos
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
36. 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'
Red herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Slippery Slope
Undistributed Middle
37. 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.
Hasty generalization
Genetic Fallacy
Dog whistle
Straw man
38. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Single cause
Ad misericordia
Pathos
39. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Appeal to Authority
Single cause
Appeal to the golden mean
40. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Prevalent Proof
Begging the question
Single cause
41. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Appeal to Authority
Slippery Slope
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
42. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Anecdote
Equivocation
Oversimplification
Appeal to the golden mean
43. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery Slope
Composition
Nonsequiter
44. 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
Dog whistle
Correlation as cause
Oversimplification
Equivocation
45. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Stereotyping
Smoke screen
Numbers
Correlation as cause
46. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Statistic
Opinion
47. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Single cause
Negative Proof
Dog whistle
Logos
48. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Nonsequiter
Division
Logos
49. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Fact
False authority
Double standard
50. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Division
Prevalent Proof
Irrelevant Proof
Composition