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