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