Test your basic knowledge |

Public Debating

Subject : soft-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. All A are B - all C are B - therefore no A are C






2. Similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words - phrases - or clauses






3. The inference says that one thing is a sign of another. It's usually used in an argument that something IS. The warrant to this argument is usually in the form 'X is a sign of Y'






4. Draws a conclusion about an entire entity based on knowledge about all of its parts






5. Draws a conclusions about ONE MEMBER of a GROUP based on a general rule about all members






6. The system for classifying disassociated terms (visually)






7. What vehicles and tenors share






8. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






9. Misrepresenting an opponent's position as more extreme than it really is and then attacking that version - or attacking a weaker opponent while ignoring a stronger one.






10. Values what is concrete rather than what is merely possible






11. Usually has three parts: 1. (MP) Major Premise - unequivocal statement 2. (mP) Minor Premise - about a specific case 3. (C) Conclusion - follows necessarily from the premises






12. The inference reasons that what a trustworthy source says is true. The warrant to this argument usually says - 'When a qualified person says something is true - it's true'






13. Opposite of anadiplosis






14. Are the two things really alike - or are there significant differences that might make them unalike in this respect? Are the negative consequences to comparing these two things? Is the analogy clear or confusing?






15. What places do procedural stasis usually occupy in an argument?






16. Bases inferences on what we know of how people act in a rational/predictable way - in order to determine the truth






17. The list that builds






18. _____ thought that rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion






19. The belief that current thinking - attitudes - values - and actions will continue in the absence of good arguments for their change






20. Indicating that something (the claim) is or is not. Is an argument from _____ ? (not a stasis point)






21. Draws a conclusion about the PARTS of an ENTITY based on knowledge about the whole entity.






22. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






23. Structural inherency and attitudinal inherency are part of what stock issue?






24. Repetition of the ending of one clause or sentence at the beginning of another.






25. Term with higher (positive) value






26. Involves a large number of people; from Ill stock issue - Produces a large amount of harm; from Ill stock issue






27. Values more over less in terms of quantitative outcomes (the greatest good for the greatest number)






28. Have both claims - reason - and at least two sides






29. This is the name for fallacies that do not have another name but that involve a claim that does not follow from the premises (e.g. the evidence is not relevant or not appropriate to support the claim). Litterally translated as 'it does not follow -'






30. A legitimate generalization is applied to a particular case in an absolute manner






31. All A are B -X is A - therefore - X is B OR All A are B - all B are C - therefore - all A are C OR All A are B - all C are A - therefore - all C are B






32. Defending something by pointing out that your opponent did it as well. Also called 'two wrongs make a right'; this is literally translated as 'thou also'






33. 1. Applying the tests of reasoning to show weaknesses in arguments and develop counterarguments 2. Accusing opponent of using fallacious reasoning 3. Pointing out a flawed metaphor 4. Discrediting the ethos of opponent 5. Pointing out flawed statisti






34. Is another variation of the tu quoque; it is when you justify a wrong by saying that this is the way things have always been done






35. Using information from mercenary scientists is committing what fallacy?






36. Part of blame stock issue - the composition of the policy is flawed






37. ______ is not: 'not real' - 'mere' or 'empty'






38. Taught by sophists; provides tools to recognize good arguments from bad ones






39. When more than one vehicle is used for the same tenor - and those vehicles appear in close proximity to each other






40. They stablish an arena for argumentation by defining ground for a dispute and issues of controversy. Typically - one side affirms the resolution and one side negates the resolution.






41. Literally - 'wise one' ; taught rhetoric to citizenry






42. Does one thing really cause the other - or are they merely correlated? Is there another larger cause or series of causes that better explains the effect?






43. 'When a qualified person says something is true - it's true' is a warrant for what arg?






44. Is the source qualified to say what is being said? Is she or he in a position to know this information? Does the testimony represent what the authority really meant to say? Is the source relatively unbiased and recent?






45. If A then B If B then C Therefore - if A then C






46. Wrote 'On Not Being' and 'In Defense of Helen'






47. Did not pay Corax for sophistry lessons and was taken to court






48. These are commonplaces for argument drawn from the specific set of values shared by a particular community of experience and interest






49. The process of using logic to draw conclusions from given facts - definitions - and properties






50. Affirming or denying a point strongly by asking it as a question; also called a 'rhetorical question'