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. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






2. Incorrectly assuming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts






3. If A then B Not A Therefore not B






4. Knowledge - Experience - Prudence (What part of Ethos)






5. Accepting an argument by example that reasons from specific to general on the basis of relevant but insufficient information or evidence.






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






7. Term with higher (positive) value






8. A field of scholarship devoted to how arguments work






9. Ammending a term or phrase you have just read






10. If A then B A Therefore B






11. All A are B -no B are C - therefore - no A are C






12. Is another variety of Hasty Generalization. It is when you reason from a sample that is not representative (typical) of the population from which it was drawn.






13. _____ rejected rhetoric as flattery - not truth - a 'knack' on par with 'cookery' and 'cosmetics'






14. 'X causes Y' is a warrant for what argument






15. Reasoning from case to case






16. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






17. Value Hierarchy Visualization






18. Assuming as a premise some form of the very point that is at issue - the very conclusion we intend to prove. Also called circular reasoning.






19. Accepting an argument that you should believe something is true just because the majority believes it is true.






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






21. Is necessary to defend the weak against the strong - Is useful and necessary to the state and the individual because you become a more thoughtful citizen and a more well-rounded person - Is useful to have the tools to recognize good arguments and def






22. Asks - 'what is it?' Involves a question of meaning when a debate turns to the proper definition of terms.






23. Anticipatory refutation - in which you preempt an opposition argument before it is even offered.






24. Accepting the word of an alleged authority when we should not because the person does not have expertise on this particular issue or s/he cannot be trusted to give an unbiased opinion.






25. Is a variation of Appeal to Ignorance. It is when you accept an argument that the presumption lies with one side and the other side has the burden of proving its case when the reverse is actually true






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






27. Providing a response to each reason that an opponent gives






28. The inference reasons from meaning or lesson of a story to a claim. The warrant usually says 'The moral to a story tells us a greater truth'






29. beginning repeated at ending






30. Agree with the values or goals of the opposition - but then argue that the opposition doesn't do a better job of achieving those values goals






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






32. Use of a word or phrase that could have several meanings






33. A metaphor with a vehicle that draws upon a human experience that is universal






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






35. Asks - 'is it?' Involves a question of fact (past - present - future)






36. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






37. 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






38. 'If two things are alike in most respects - they will be alike in this respect too' Warrant for what arg?






39. Based on the setting - which dictates the ____ ____ used to determine who has won the debate - E.g. Academic Policy Debate: stock issues Criminal Court Case: beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Courtroom: preponderance of evidence This Classroom: were yo






40. The requirement that the opposition responds reasonably to all significant issues presented by the advocate of change.






41. Does the argument effectively appeal to audience values and priorities? Does the argument accurately capture the values at play in this situation?






42. Part of the blame stock issue - the acceptance or obedience to the policy or law makes it ineffective






43. Any logical system that abstracts the form of statements away from their content in order to establish abstract criteria of consistency and validity






44. Exaggeration






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






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






47. Taking one idea and dividing it into two parts - disengaging the two resulting ideas - giving a positive value to one (Term II) and a lesser or negative value to the other (Term I). These are often based on the appearance/reality pair.






48. Incorrectly assuming that one choice or another must be made when other choices are available or when no choice must be made






49. The inference compares two similar things - saying that since they are alike in some respects - they are alike in another respect. It can be a figurative analogy or a literal analogy. The warrant usually reads: 'if two things are alike in most respec






50. Arguments that are flawed (not from formal logic)