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