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






2. 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






3. 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'






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






5. 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






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






7. '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?






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






9. 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?






10. Did not pay Corax for sophistry lessons and was taken to court






11. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






12. Arguing without evidence that a given event is the first of a series of steps that will inevitably lead to some outcome.






13. Term with higher (positive) value






14. 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






15. beginning repeated at ending






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






17. 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






18. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






19. Who developed the argument from general probability?






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






21. Is a variety of Hasty Generalization; it is when you draw conclusions about a population on the basis of a sample that is too small to be a reliable measure of that population






22. All A are B - all C are B - therefore all A are C






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






24. 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 -'






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






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






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






28. Conjectural - Procedural - Definitional - and Qualitative Points are all ____

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/html/basicversity.com/show_quiz.php on line 183


29. 1. Applying the tests of reasoning to show weaknesses in arguments and develop counterarguments 2. Accusing opponent of using fallacious reasoning 3. Pointing out a flawed metaphor 4. Discrediting the ethos of opponent 5. Pointing out flawed statisti






30. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






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






32. Does the argument effectively appeal to audience values and priorities? Does the argument accurately capture the values at play in this situation?






33. Asks - 'what is it?' Involves a question of meaning when a debate turns to the proper definition of terms.






34. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






35. Are there associated commonplaces for this metaphor that can be turned against the arguer?






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






37. 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.






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






39. Value Hierarchy Visualization






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






41. Opposite of Epistrophe






42. Ammending a term or phrase you have just read






43. If A then B Not B Therefore not A






44. Deliberate correction






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






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






47. 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:






48. Leaving no doubt - unambiguous






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






50. 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