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. Understatement






2. Agreeing to some of the arguments made by your opponents so that you can focus on others






3. Accepting a token gesture for something more substantive






4. Show that an opponent's argument actually supports your side of the debate (often accompanied by a flip in values)






5. Drawing an analogical conclusion when the cases compared are not relevantly alike






6. 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?






7. 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






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






9. If A then B A Therefore B






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






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






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






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






14. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






15. 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






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






17. Value Hierarchy Visualization in terms of high and low values (?/?)






18. _____ said that concerning all things - there are two contradictory arguments that exist in opposition to one another.






19. Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost






20. 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






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






22. Fallacious argument from specific to general without sufficient evidence - Draws a conclusion about all the members of a group based on the knowledge of some members






23. Beginning repeated






24. 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?






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






26. 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'






27. The inference moves from cause to effect or effect to cause - arguing that something is the direct result of something else. The warrant to this argument is usually formatted as: 'X is a form of Y'






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






29. After this - therefore on account of this






30. Term with higher (positive) value






31. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






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






33. An implicit comparison made by referring to one thing as another






34. 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'






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






36. An explicit metaphor that overtly compares two things - often using the words 'like' or 'as'






37. 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.






38. 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






39. 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






40. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






41. 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'






42. 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.






43. 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






44. If A then B Not A Therefore not B






45. 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:






46. _____ thought that the most worthy study is one that advances the student's ability to speak and deliberate on affairs of the state.






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






48. Who developed the argument from general probability?






49. All A are B - all C are B - therefore no A are C






50. 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







Sorry!:) No result found.

Can you answer 50 questions in 15 minutes?


Let me suggest you:

Browse all subjects

Browse all tests

Most popular tests



Major Subjects

Tests & Exams


AP
CLEP
DSST
GRE
SAT
GMAT

Browse all subjects

Browse all tests

Most popular tests