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. All A are B - all C are B - therefore no A are C






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


3. _____ rejected rhetoric as flattery - not truth - a 'knack' on par with 'cookery' and 'cosmetics'






4. Based on the setting - which dictates the ____ ____ used to determine who has won the debate - E.g. Academic Policy Debate: stock issues Criminal Court Case: beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Courtroom: preponderance of evidence This Classroom: were yo






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






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






7. Ending repeated






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






9. 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'






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






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






12. 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






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






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






15. beginning repeated at ending






16. Value Hierarchy Visualization in terms of high and low values (?/?)






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






18. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






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






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






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






22. Whitewashes the effect of your topic to downplay it; less emotional than appropriate






23. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






24. 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.






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. 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






27. 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'






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






29. Faling to bring relevant evidence to bear on an argument






30. Structure repeated






31. A metaphor that gives attributes to a nonhuman thing






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. Misrepresenting an opponent's position as more extreme than it really is and then attacking that version - or attacking a weaker opponent while ignoring a stronger one.






34. Similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words - phrases - or clauses






35. 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.






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






37. 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?






38. Opposite of Hyperbole






39. Ideas repeated






40. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






41. 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






42. '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?






43. 'The moral to a story tells us a greater truth' is a warrant for what arg?






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






45. Opposite of Anaphora






46. 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'






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






48. 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)






49. 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






50. Special Topoi and Loci of the Preferable - what kind of args?