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. 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






2. 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!'






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






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.'






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






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






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






8. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence






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






10. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent






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






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






13. 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.






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






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






18. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?






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






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






21. 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.






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






32. 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.






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






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






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






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






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






38. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue






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






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






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






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






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






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






45. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






46. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true






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






48. Appeal to reason






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






50. 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'