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. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support






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






3. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case






4. 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!'






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






6. 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'






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






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






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






10. 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?






11. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data






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






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






14. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






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






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






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






18. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source






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






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






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






22. 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.






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






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






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






26. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent






27. 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.






28. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern






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






30. Appeal based on the credibility of the author






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






32. Appeal to reason






33. 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.






34. Information that can be objectively proven as true






35. 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.'






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






44. 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.






45. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue






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






47. Appeal to the reader's emotions






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






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






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