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