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






2. Arguments that are flawed (not from formal logic)






3. 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






4. 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'






5. Structure repeated






6. Involves a large number of people; from Ill stock issue - Produces a large amount of harm; from Ill stock issue






7. _______ in ancient Greece spurred the need for the use of rhetoric in everyday life.






8. The process of using logic to draw conclusions from given facts - definitions - and properties






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






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






11. Civil rights - economic justice - environmental stewardship - government as safety net - worker's rights - diversity






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






13. Set two things in opposition






14. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






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






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






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






18. If A then B B Therefore - A






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






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. Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost






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






23. Professional Standing - Fame (Ethos)






24. Anticipatory refutation - in which you preempt an opposition argument before it is even offered.






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






26. 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






27. A metaphor that gives attributes to a nonhuman thing






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






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






30. Repetition of the same word or groups of words at the beginning of successive clauses - sentences - or lines.






31. Is the metaphor appropriate? The key to ____ is matching strategy to situation.






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






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. Accepting the word of an alleged authority when we should not because the person does not have expertise on this particular issue or s/he cannot be trusted to give an unbiased opinion.






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






36. Part of the blame stock issue - the acceptance or obedience to the policy or law makes it ineffective






37. If A then B A Therefore B






38. Opposite of Epanalepsis






39. What order do definitional and qualitative stasis usually fall into when put into an argument?






40. 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?






41. 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'






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






43. The process of discrediting someone's argument by revealing weaknesses in it or presenting a counterargument






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






45. '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?






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






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






48. A legitimate generalization is applied to a particular case in an absolute manner






49. 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?






50. 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 -'