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