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. 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.'






3. 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.






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






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






6. Appeal to reason






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






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






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






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






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






12. Appeal based on the credibility of the author






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






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






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






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






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






18. Information based on personal interpretation of facts






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






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






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






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






23. 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?






24. 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!'






25. 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.






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






27. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data






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






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






30. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent






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






32. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern






33. 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'






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






35. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence






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






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






38. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue






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






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






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






42. 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.






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






44. 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.






45. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true






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






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






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






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






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