Test your basic knowledge |

Public Debating

Subject : soft-skills
  • 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. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas

2. 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'

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

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

5. Arguments that are flawed (not from formal logic)

6. Concerns new policy being proposed that will remedy the ill outlined and the inherent factors.

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

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

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

10. 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'

11. 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

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

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

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

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

16. Who developed the argument from general probability?

17. _______ in ancient Greece spurred the need for the use of rhetoric in everyday life.

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

19. 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:

20. 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

21. Term with lower (negative) value

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

23. Asks - 'is it?' Involves a question of fact (past - present - future)

24. Structural inherency and attitudinal inherency are part of what stock issue?

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

26. Oppostite of Litotes

27. The proposition or conclusion that the arguer is advancing

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

29. 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

30. The process of using logic to draw conclusions from given facts - definitions - and properties

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

32. Opposite of Epistrophe

33. 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

34. Ask a rhetorical question

35. 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'

36. 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'

37. 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

38. What vehicles and tenors share

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

40. 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)

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

42. Grounds ---> Claim | Warrant

43. The inference says that one thing is a sign of another. It's usually used in an argument that something IS. The warrant to this argument is usually in the form 'X is a sign of Y'

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

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

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

47. Literally - 'wise one' ; taught rhetoric to citizenry

48. beginning repeated at ending

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

50. Opposite of Epanalepsis