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. Values what is concrete rather than what is merely possible






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






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






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






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






6. Personal charm - sex appeal - leadership qualities (Ethos)






7. Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost






8. Deliberate correction






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






10. Does the moral really follow from the story? Is the narrative plausible and coherent? Are the characterizations consistent?






11. Asks - 'who has the authority?' Involves a question of proper procedure.






12. Are the terms of the metaphor coherent - or does it tell a story or paint a picure that fails to make sense internally?






13. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the new policy. Are the adverse effects going to outweigh the benefits?






14. After this - therefore on account of this






15. 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.






16. _____ thought that the most worthy study is one that advances the student's ability to speak and deliberate on affairs of the state.






17. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






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






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






20. Arguing that one thing caused another without sufficient evidence of a causal relationship.






21. 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






22. 'Bad eggs are all you are likely to get from a bad crow' was said where?






23. Puritan morality - change and progress - equality of opportunity - rejection of authority - achievement and success






24. 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






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






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






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






28. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






29. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






30. Obligation of the arguer advocating change to overcome the presumption through argument






31. 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.






32. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






33. 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 -'






34. Opposite of Anaphora






35. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas






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






37. What places do procedural stasis usually occupy in an argument?






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






39. Opposite of Epistrophe






40. Specific evidence or reason to support the claim (often introduced with the words 'because' or 'since')






41. 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






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






43. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






44. Repetition of the same idea - changing either its words - its delivery - or the general treatment it is given.






45. 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.






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






47. 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






48. 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?






49. ______ are hired to create manufactroversy






50. Is a variation of Appeal to Ignorance. It is when you accept an argument that the presumption lies with one side and the other side has the burden of proving its case when the reverse is actually true