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. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue






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






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






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






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






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






7. 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.






8. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true






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






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






11. 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.'






12. Appeal to the reader's emotions






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






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






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






16. 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'






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






18. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue






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






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






21. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern






22. Appeal to reason






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






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






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






26. Appeal based on the credibility of the author






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






28. 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.






29. 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.






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






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






32. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






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






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






36. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data






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






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






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






40. 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!'






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






42. 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






43. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence






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






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






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






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






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






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






50. Information that can be objectively proven as true