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