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