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