SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
Public Debating
Start Test
Study First
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.
Slippery Slope (Fallacy)
Qualitative (Stasis)
Burden of Rejoinder
Exergasia
2. A or B Not A Therefore - B
Aristotle
Analogy
Checking for Analogy argument
Disjunctive (Syllogism)
3. Shifting the buren of proof is a category of ____ __ _____
Euphimism
Appeal to Ignorance
Anadiplosis
(Argument from) Cause
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
Ill
Example
Begging the Question
Anadiplosis
5. What order does conjectural stasis usually fall in when arguing?
Anadiplosis
First
Correctio
Cost
6. Incorrectly assuming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts
Direct Refutation
Division
Simile
Mercenary Scientists
7. Reasoning from case to case
Questionable Cause
Burden of Rejoinder
Begging the Question
Analogy
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.
Disassociation of Concepts
Agree on Commonality then refute
False Dichotomy
Burden of proof
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 -'
Anadiplosis
Non Sequitur
Begging the Question
Categorical (Syllogism)
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.
Term II (Disassociation Pair)
Checking for Cause argement
Mixed Metaphor
Debate Resolutions
11. Term with lower (negative) value
Term I (Disassociation Pair)
Definitional (Stasis)
Locus of Quantity
Composition
12. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning
Refutation
False Charge of Fallacy
Incrementum
Corax
13. Opposite of Hyperbole
Tisias
Litotes
(Special Topoi for) American Public Address
Consistency
14. Providing a response to each reason that an opponent gives
Tu Quoque
Direct Refutation
Corax
Burden of Rejoinder
15. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas
Antithesis
(Argument from) Narrative
Cure
Attitudinal (inherency)
16. Indicating that something (the claim) is or is not. Is an argument from _____ ? (not a stasis point)
Sign
Antithesis
Locus of Quantity
Unsound
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
(Argument by) Analogy
Formal Logic
Categorical (Syllogism)
Hypothetical (Syllogism)
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
Procedural (Stasis)
Non Sequitur
(Fallacy of) Accident
Categorical (Syllogism)
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
Syllogism
Anaphora
Modus Ponens
Small Sample
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'
(Argument from) Testimony
Hyperbole
Mixed Metaphor
Stasis
21. What vehicles and tenors share
Appeal to Authority
Formal Logic
(Evaluation Criteria for) Value-Oriented Arguments
Associated Commonplaces
22. Originality - explanatory power - quantitative precision - simplicity - scope
Correctio
(Special Topoi for) Science
Term II (Disassociation Pair)
Presumption
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?
Vehicle (and) Tenor
Questionable Cause
Burden of proof
Checking for Testimony argument
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
Traditional Wisdom (Fallacy)
Parallelism
Composition
Appeal to Ignorance
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
Agree on Commonality then refute
(Evaluation Criteria for) Value-Oriented Arguments
Status
Consistency
26. Obligation of the arguer advocating change to overcome the presumption through argument
Burden of proof
Good Will (Ethos)
Antithesis
Litotes
27. Grounds ---> Claim | Warrant
Deductive Reasoning
Toulmin Model
Refutation
Parallelism
28. Is a variation of the tu quoque; it is when you justify a wrong by saying that most other people do it too.
Conceding Arguments
Composition
(Argument from) Cause
Common Practice (Fallacy)
29. What places do procedural stasis usually occupy in an argument?
Second (or) Third
Locus of Quality
Categorical (Syllogism)
Unrepresentative Sample
30. An argument with true premises and valid form
Anadiplosis
Sound
Simile
Value Hierarchies
31. An argument that either lacks validity - soundness or both.
Good Will (Ethos)
Unsound
(Fallacy of) Accident
(Argument from) Sign
32. Professional Standing - Fame (Ethos)
Status
Tokenism
Charisma
Special Topoi
33. Drawing an analogical conclusion when the cases compared are not relevantly alike
Loci of the Preferable
Questionable Analogy
Special Topoi
Refutation Strategies
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?
Good Moral Character
Epanalepsis
Checking for Example argument
Aristotle
35. 'If two things are alike in most respects - they will be alike in this respect too' Warrant for what arg?
(Argument from) Narrative
Analogy
Tu Quoque
Locus of Quantity
36. Bases inferences on what we know of how people act in a rational/predictable way - in order to determine the truth
Popular Democracy
Hasty Generalization
Refutation Strategies
(Argument of ) General probability
37. Incorrectly assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole
Correctio
(Special Topoi for) Science
Composition
Emotionally Charged (Language)
38. Who developed the argument from general probability?
Anadiplosis
Term I (Disassociation Pair)
Corax
Arguments
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
Formal Debate
Vehicle (and) Tenor
Gorgias
Epistrophe
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)
False Charge of Fallacy
Rhetoric
(Argument from) Sign
Fallacy Fallacy
41. Is the metaphor overused - heard so many times that it becomes tedious rather than persuasive?
Questionable Analogy
Erotema
(Argument from) Cause
Cliche
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'
Tu Quoque
Popular Democracy
Categorical (Syllogism)
Cliche
43. beginning repeated at ending
Deductive Reasoning
Epanalepsis
Checking for Example argument
Ethos
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'
Tools of Refutation
Personification
(Argument from) Narrative
Litotes
45. Structural inherency and attitudinal inherency are part of what stock issue?
Checking for Cause argement
Epistrophe
Blame
Checking for Example argument
46. Part of blame stock issue - the composition of the policy is flawed
Ill
Structural (inherency)
Narrative
Second (or) Third
47. Religious liberty - limited government - entrepreneurship - military strength - traditional institutions - property rights
Tu Quoque
Decision Rules
(Special Topoi for) Republicans
Corax
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?
Debate Resolutions
Direct Refutation
Equivocation
Checking for Analogy argument
49. Inference that allows you to move from grounds to claim (often implied in the argument)
(Argument by) Example
Burden of proof
Warrant
Epistrophe
50. Asks - 'is it?' Involves a question of fact (past - present - future)
Conjectural (Stasis)
Sign
Toulmin Model
Vehicle (and) Tenor