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