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






2. A or B Not A Therefore - B






3. Shifting the buren of proof is a category of ____ __ _____






4. 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






5. What order does conjectural stasis usually fall in when arguing?






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






7. Reasoning from case to case






8. 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.






9. 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 -'






10. 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.






11. Term with lower (negative) value






12. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






13. Opposite of Hyperbole






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






15. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas






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






17. 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






18. 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






19. 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






20. 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'






21. What vehicles and tenors share






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






23. 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?






24. 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






25. 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






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






27. Grounds ---> Claim | Warrant






28. Is a variation of the tu quoque; it is when you justify a wrong by saying that most other people do it too.






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






30. An argument with true premises and valid form






31. An argument that either lacks validity - soundness or both.






32. Professional Standing - Fame (Ethos)






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






34. 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?






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






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






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






38. Who developed the argument from general probability?






39. Oral performances that have a set format in which two or more speakers take turns making arguments and counterarguments before an audience - Examples: Court room - candidate debates - academic debates






40. Arguing that the conclusion of an argument must be untrue because there is a fallacy in the reasoning. (Just because the premises may not be true - does not mean that the conclusion has to be false)






41. Is the metaphor overused - heard so many times that it becomes tedious rather than persuasive?






42. 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'






43. beginning repeated at ending






44. 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'






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






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






47. Religious liberty - limited government - entrepreneurship - military strength - traditional institutions - property rights






48. 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?






49. Inference that allows you to move from grounds to claim (often implied in the argument)






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