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






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. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence






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






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






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






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






8. Appeal to the reader's emotions






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






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






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






12. 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?






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






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






15. 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'






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






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






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. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data






21. Information that can be objectively proven as true






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






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






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






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






26. 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.






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






28. 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.






29. 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.'






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






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






32. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






33. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent






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






35. Appeal based on the credibility of the author






36. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true






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






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






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






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






41. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern






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






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






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






45. 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.






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






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






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






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






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