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