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






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






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






4. Any logical system that abstracts the form of statements away from their content in order to establish abstract criteria of consistency and validity






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






6. Opposite of Epistrophe






7. Is a variation of the tu quoque; it is when you justify a wrong by saying that most other people do it too.






8. Letters to the editor - group discussions - talk show






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






10. 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?






11. If A then B Not A Therefore not B






12. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






13. Professional Standing - Fame (Ethos)






14. Erroneously accusing others of fallacious reasoning






15. Repetition of the ending of one clause or sentence at the beginning of another.






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






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






18. 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






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






20. Reasoning from case to case






21. A metaphor with a vehicle that draws upon a human experience that is universal






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






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






24. A metaphor that gives attributes to a nonhuman thing






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






26. Understatement






27. Drawing an analogical conclusion when the cases compared are not relevantly alike






28. An explicit metaphor that overtly compares two things - often using the words 'like' or 'as'






29. Repetition of the opening clause or sentence at its ending.






30. 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'






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






32. 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'






33. 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.






34. Incorrectly assuming that one choice or another must be made when other choices are available or when no choice must be made






35. Asks - 'what is it?' Involves a question of meaning when a debate turns to the proper definition of terms.






36. Agree with the values or goals of the opposition - but then argue that the opposition doesn't do a better job of achieving those values goals






37. The proposition or conclusion that the arguer is advancing






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. 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






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






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






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






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






44. Repetition of the endings of successive clauses - sentences - or lines.






45. 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:






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






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






48. 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






49. Good Moral Character






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