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