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