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