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