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