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






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






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






4. Draws a conclusion about the PARTS of an ENTITY based on knowledge about the whole entity.






5. Qualitative significance is part of what stock issue?






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






7. They stablish an arena for argumentation by defining ground for a dispute and issues of controversy. Typically - one side affirms the resolution and one side negates the resolution.






8. 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






9. Use of a word or phrase that could have several meanings






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






11. Is the metaphor overused - heard so many times that it becomes tedious rather than persuasive?






12. Ask a rhetorical question






13. Good Moral Character






14. Set two things in opposition






15. An irrelevant attack on an opponent rather than on the opponent's evidence or arguments; this is literally translated as an argument 'to the person'






16. Opposite of Hyperbole






17. Consistency - Decorum - Refutation Potential - Cliche and Mixed _____ are forms of judging ______(s)






18. Values what is unique - irreplaceable or original






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






20. Conjectural - Procedural - Definitional - and Qualitative Points are all ____


21. Part of the blame stock issue - the acceptance or obedience to the policy or law makes it ineffective






22. The list that builds






23. 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?






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






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






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






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






28. Deliberate exaggeration for effect; it is often accomplished via comparisons - similes - and metaphors.






29. Appeals from the character of the speaker






30. Similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words - phrases - or clauses






31. Four categories of the Loci of the Preferable






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






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






34. Is the metaphor appropriate? The key to ____ is matching strategy to situation.






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






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






37. 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.






38. 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






39. 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






40. 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?






41. Taught by sophists; provides tools to recognize good arguments from bad ones






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






43. After this - therefore on account of this






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






45. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






46. 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.






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






48. 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'






49. 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'






50. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor