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