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