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