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. 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'






2. 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






3. An implicit comparison made by referring to one thing as another






4. What is 'at issue' in a controversy; the place where two sides of an argument come into conflict; the clash between arguments.






5. Understatement






6. What kind of commonplaces 'deflect reality'






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






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






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






10. Oppostite of Litotes






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






12. Values what is at the core or essence of a group (or class) rather than what is at the margins






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






14. Wrote 'On Not Being' and 'In Defense of Helen'






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. Arguments that are flawed (not from formal logic)






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






18. 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.






19. Are the two things really alike - or are there significant differences that might make them unalike in this respect? Are the negative consequences to comparing these two things? Is the analogy clear or confusing?






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






21. Reasoning from case to case






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






23. If A then B Not A Therefore not B






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






25. 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






26. Leaving no doubt - unambiguous






27. Metaphors use ____ and ____






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






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






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






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






32. Opposite of Hyperbole






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






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






35. 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






36. 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






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






38. 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?






39. 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'






40. 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.






41. If A then B Not B Therefore not A






42. Four categories of the Loci of the Preferable






43. Good Moral Character






44. Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost






45. '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?






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






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






48. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






49. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






50. Prolepsis - Direct Refutation - Conceding some points to focus on others - Agree on commonality then refute - and Turn are all examples of _____ ______