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