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