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