Test your basic knowledge |

SAT Essay Logical Fallacies

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. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea






2. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion






3. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course






4. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






5. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria






6. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause






7. 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'






8. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event






9. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion






10. 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.






11. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.






12. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another






13. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue






14. Appeal based on the credibility of the author






15. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations






16. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident






17. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience






18. 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.






19. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?






20. 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.'






21. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to






22. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed






23. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second






24. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase






25. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence






26. 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?






27. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic






28. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it






29. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?






30. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue






31. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue






32. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.






33. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)






34. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right






35. 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!'






36. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented






37. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent






38. Appeal to reason






39. 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.






40. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence






41. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.






42. 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.






43. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support






44. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts






45. Information that can be objectively proven as true






46. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?






47. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist






48. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply






49. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false






50. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence