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 in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Ethos
False scenario
Prevalent Proof
Deductive Reasoning
2. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Genetic Fallacy
Straw man
3. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Values
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Red Herring
Pathos
4. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Smoke screen
Inductive Reasoning
5. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Double standard
Irrelevant Proof
Inductive Reasoning
Fact
6. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Oversimplification
7. 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
Ethos
Inductive Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
8. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Genetic Fallacy
Single cause
Nonsequiter
9. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Negative Proof
Red herring
Nonsequiter
Anecdote
10. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Red herring
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Circular Reasoning
11. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Cause-effect relationships
Vagueness
False scenario
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
12. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Either-or Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
Pathos
13. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Oversimplification
Cause-effect relationships
Stereotyping
Nonsequiter
14. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Slippery Slope
Negative Proof
False analogy
15. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Straw man
Prevalent Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Hasty generalization
16. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Opinion
Dog whistle
Red Herring
Special pleading
17. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Straw man
Fact
Oversimplification
Slippery slope
18. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Hasty generalization
Hasty generalization
Single cause
Oversimplification
19. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
False scenario
Numbers
Double standard
Smoke screen
20. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Hasty generalization
21. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Circular Reasoning
Pathos
Numbers
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
22. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Equivocation
Pathos
Ad hominem
Appeal to the golden mean
23. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Numbers
Single cause
Composition
Ad misericordia
24. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Dog whistle
Slippery Slope
Anecdote
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
25. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Undistributed Middle
Values
Oversimplification
Either-or Reasoning
26. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Appeal to the golden mean
Ethos
Pathos
Appeal to Authority
27. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Straw man
Circular Reasoning
Values
Statistic
28. 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.
Appeal to Authority
Oversimplification
Equivocation
Appeal to the golden mean
29. 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'
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Undistributed Middle
Dog whistle
30. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
Opinion
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
31. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Ad hominem
Stereotyping
Straw man
32. 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?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Irrelevant Proof
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
33. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty generalization
34. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Nonsequiter
Ad vericundium
Ethos
Circular Reasoning
35. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Undistributed Middle
Oversimplification
Either-or Reasoning
Ad hominem
36. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Cause-effect relationships
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Red Herring
Vagueness
37. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Logos
Single cause
Division
38. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False authority
Negative Proof
Ad vericundium
Red herring
39. Appeal to reason
Logos
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Smoke screen
40. 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.
Statistic
Dog whistle
Ad hominem
Equivocation
41. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Ad hominem
Red herring
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
42. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Appeal to the golden mean
Hasty generalization
Circular Reasoning
Red herring
43. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Ad populum
False authority
Double standard
Equivocation
44. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Appeal to the golden mean
Statistic
Correlation as cause
Numbers
45. 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!'
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Double standard
False scenario
Stereotyping
46. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Special pleading
Nonsequiter
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
47. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Opinion
Genetic Fallacy
Either-or Reasoning
48. 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
Begging the question
Red Herring
49. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Equivocation
Numbers
Statistic
Stereotyping
50. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Dog whistle
Ad populum
Hasty generalization