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