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. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






2. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas






3. Repetition of the opening clause or sentence at its ending.






4. Most fallacies are ____ ____; that is if the argument were to employ difference evidence - or be offered in different circumstances - it would be perfectly fine - but in the specific case in which it is identified as a fallacy - it is flawed






5. Whitewashes the effect of your topic to downplay it; less emotional than appropriate






6. 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'






7. A metaphor with a vehicle that draws upon experience that is specific to a particular culture






8. Ending of one repeated at the beginning of another






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






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






11. Faling to bring relevant evidence to bear on an argument






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






13. Focuses on inadequacies or problems in the status quo - must be significant if a change is to be made. Must Have: 1. Quantitative significance: affects lots of people 2. Qualitative significance: is of bad quality






14. 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.






15. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






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






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






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






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






20. Opposite of Epanalepsis






21. Opposite of anadiplosis






22. 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






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






24. An argument that follows proper logical form






25. If A then B Not B Therefore not A






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






27. Structure repeated






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






29. The inference moves from specific to general or from general to specific. The warrant to this argument usually reads 'what is true in this case is true in general' or 'what is true in general is true in this case'






30. Does the moral really follow from the story? Is the narrative plausible and coherent? Are the characterizations consistent?






31. Attempts to assign responsibility for the existence of the ill to the current system. Needs to connect the ill to the policy in order for it to be changed. Must Have: 1. Structural Inherency: bad structure/lack of structure 2. Attitudinal Inherency:






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






33. 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






34. Obligation of the arguer advocating change to overcome the presumption through argument






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






36. Specific evidence or reason to support the claim (often introduced with the words 'because' or 'since')






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






38. 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.






39. Set two things in opposition






40. Using a term in an argument in one sense in one place and another sense in another place






41. 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






42. 'What is true in this case is true in general' or 'What is true in general is true in this case' Is a warrant for what kind of argument?






43. Deliberate exaggeration for effect; it is often accomplished via comparisons - similes - and metaphors.






44. Repetition of the endings of successive clauses - sentences - or lines.






45. The list that builds






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






47. A or B Not A Therefore - B






48. Asks - 'of what kind is it?' Involves a question of the quality of the act - whether it is good or bad.






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






50. These seats or commonplaces of argument suggest inferences that arguers might make that are based on the habits of thought and value hierarchies that everyone shares