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






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






3. The list that builds






4. 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:






5. Letters to the editor - group discussions - talk show






6. 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.






7. Reasoning from case to case






8. 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






9. Values what is at the core or essence of a group (or class) rather than what is at the margins






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






11. Deliberate correction






12. Is a variety of questionable cause; it is when you conclude that something cause dsomething else just because the second thing came after it; literally translated as 'after this - therefore on account of this'






13. Concerns new policy being proposed that will remedy the ill outlined and the inherent factors.






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






15. Opposite of Anaphora






16. Opposite of anadiplosis






17. Oppostite of Litotes






18. Leaving no doubt - unambiguous






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






20. If A then B Not B Therefore not A






21. If A then B A Therefore B






22. Good Moral Character






23. Ask a rhetorical question






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






25. 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.






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






27. Ending repeated






28. Honesty - Dedication - Courage (What part of Ethos)






29. Taking the absence of evidence against something as justification for believing that thing is true.






30. Can the sign be found without the thing for which it stands? Is an alternative explanation of the maning of the sign more credible? Are there countering signs that indicate that his one sign is false?






31. A syllogism suppressing the Major Premise - and only contains a Minor Premise and the Conclusion. People speak in these more often than syllogisms.






32. Common practice and traditional wisdom fallacies are categories of _____






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






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






35. Are there enough examples to prove that point? Are the examples skewed toward one type of thing? Are the examples unambiguous? Could it be that the connection of general and specific doesn't hold in this case?






36. 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






37. It does not follow - Red Herring belongs to this category






38. Originality - explanatory power - quantitative precision - simplicity - scope






39. Structure repeated






40. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






41. Four categories of the Loci of the Preferable






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






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






44. Personal charm - sex appeal - leadership qualities (Ethos)






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






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






47. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






48. Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost






49. Are the terms of the metaphor coherent - or does it tell a story or paint a picure that fails to make sense internally?






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