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