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. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence






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






3. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern






4. Appeal to the reader's emotions






5. 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!'






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






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






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






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






10. 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






11. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data






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






13. Information that can be objectively proven as true






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






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






16. 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.'






17. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue






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






19. Appeal to reason






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






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






22. 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?






23. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true






24. 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.






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






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






27. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






40. 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.






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






42. 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.






43. 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.






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






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






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






47. 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'






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






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






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