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