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