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. These seats or commonplaces of argument suggest inferences that arguers might make that are based on the habits of thought and value hierarchies that everyone shares






2. Reasoning from case to case






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






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






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






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






7. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create confusion in the public about an issue of scientific fact that is not in dispute by the scientific community. Used to stop debate at the conjectural le






8. 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


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






10. Taking the absence of evidence against something as justification for believing that thing is true.






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






12. Accepting an argument that you should believe something is true just because the majority believes it is true.






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






14. Who developed the argument from general probability?






15. 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






16. 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






17. beginning repeated at ending






18. A metaphor with a vehicle that draws upon experience that is specific to a particular culture






19. The system for classifying disassociated terms (visually)






20. An irrelevant attack on an opponent rather than on the opponent's evidence or arguments; this is literally translated as an argument 'to the person'






21. Grounds ---> Claim | Warrant






22. The proposition or conclusion that the arguer is advancing






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






24. The inference moves from specific to general or from general to specific. The warrant to this argument usually reads 'what is true in this case is true in general' or 'what is true in general is true in this case'






25. 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'






26. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas






27. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






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






29. Use of a word or phrase that could have several meanings






30. An argument with true premises and valid form






31. 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'






32. 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






33. 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?






34. 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 -'






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






36. 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.






37. Beginning repeated






38. An argument that follows proper logical form






39. 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?






40. A metaphor with a vehicle that draws upon a human experience that is universal






41. 'When a qualified person says something is true - it's true' is a warrant for what arg?






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






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






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






45. Have both claims - reason - and at least two sides






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






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






48. Circular Reasoning






49. 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.






50. If A then B Not A Therefore not B