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