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. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






2. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






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






4. After this - therefore on account of this






5. Ending of one repeated at the beginning of another






6. A legitimate generalization is applied to a particular case in an absolute manner






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






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






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






11. If A then B Not B Therefore not A






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






13. 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






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






15. Using information from mercenary scientists is committing what fallacy?






16. 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






17. It does not follow - Red Herring belongs to this category






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






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






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






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






22. 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'






23. 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






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






25. The system for classifying disassociated terms (visually)






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






27. Ammending a term or phrase you have just read






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






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






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






31. 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






32. Is a variation of the non sequiter; it is when the irrelevant reason is meant to divert the attention of the audience from the real issue






33. 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.






34. 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






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






36. Draws a conclusions about ONE MEMBER of a GROUP based on a general rule about all members






37. Metaphors use ____ and ____






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






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






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






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






42. Oppostite of Litotes






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






44. Asks - 'who has the authority?' Involves a question of proper procedure.






45. An argument with true premises and valid form






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






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






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. 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






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