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. Who developed the argument from general probability?






2. Asks - 'of what kind is it?' Involves a question of the quality of the act - whether it is good or bad.






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






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






5. 'X causes Y' is a warrant for what argument






6. 'X is an sign of Y' is what arg's warrant?






7. Is a variety of questionable cause; it is when you conclude that something cause dsomething else just because the second thing came after it; literally translated as 'after this - therefore on account of this'






8. A _____ is not just abuse or contradiction






9. Term with lower (negative) value






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






11. 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






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






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






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






15. Ideas repeated






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






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






18. 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






19. Repetition of the same word or groups of words at the beginning of successive clauses - sentences - or lines.






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






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






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






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






24. Opposite of Hyperbole






25. 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:






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






27. Oppostite of Litotes






28. Term with higher (positive) value






29. The proposition or conclusion that the arguer is advancing






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






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






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






33. Civil rights - economic justice - environmental stewardship - government as safety net - worker's rights - diversity






34. The list that builds






35. 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






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






37. What vehicles and tenors share






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






39. 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'






40. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






41. Providing a response to each reason that an opponent gives






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






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






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






45. 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.






46. After this - therefore on account of this






47. 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






48. 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?






49. Knowledge - Experience - Prudence (What part of Ethos)






50. 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






Can you answer 50 questions in 15 minutes?



Let me suggest you:

Browse all subjects

Browse all tests

Most popular tests



Major Subjects

Tests & Exams


AP
CLEP
DSST
GRE
SAT
GMAT

Browse all subjects

Browse all tests

Most popular tests