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. Providing a response to each reason that an opponent gives






2. The inference reasons from meaning or lesson of a story to a claim. The warrant usually says 'The moral to a story tells us a greater truth'






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






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






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






6. Affirming or denying a point strongly by asking it as a question; also called a 'rhetorical question'






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






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






9. The belief that current thinking - attitudes - values - and actions will continue in the absence of good arguments for their change






10. Metaphors use ____ and ____






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






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






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






14. Ask a rhetorical question






15. Structure repeated






16. Ideas repeated






17. '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?






18. Opposite of Anaphora






19. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






20. 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






21. Opposite of anadiplosis






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






23. Professional Standing - Fame (Ethos)






24. Is another variety of Hasty Generalization. It is when you reason from a sample that is not representative (typical) of the population from which it was drawn.






25. 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.






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






27. 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






28. Part of blame stock issue - the composition of the policy is flawed






29. Originality - explanatory power - quantitative precision - simplicity - scope






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






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






32. Does one thing really cause the other - or are they merely correlated? Is there another larger cause or series of causes that better explains the effect?






33. 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:






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






35. 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'






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






37. 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'






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






39. 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


40. If A then B If B then C Therefore - if A then C






41. 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






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






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






44. Beginning repeated






45. Values what is concrete rather than what is merely possible






46. Draws a conclusion about an entire entity based on knowledge about all of its parts






47. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






48. What order does conjectural stasis usually fall in when arguing?






49. 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






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