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