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