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