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. Grounds ---> Claim | Warrant






2. Is the source qualified to say what is being said? Is she or he in a position to know this information? Does the testimony represent what the authority really meant to say? Is the source relatively unbiased and recent?






3. Demonstrating respect and care for the audience






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






5. beginning repeated at ending






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






7. Honesty - Dedication - Courage (What part of Ethos)






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






9. If A then B Not A Therefore not B






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






11. 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:






12. An argument that follows proper logical form






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






14. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






15. Accepting a token gesture for something more substantive






16. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the new policy. Are the adverse effects going to outweigh the benefits?






17. Can the sign be found without the thing for which it stands? Is an alternative explanation of the maning of the sign more credible? Are there countering signs that indicate that his one sign is false?






18. Opposite of Anaphora






19. 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.






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






28. Draws a conclusion about an entire entity based on knowledge about all of its parts






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






30. Does the argument effectively appeal to audience values and priorities? Does the argument accurately capture the values at play in this situation?






31. Opposite of Epistrophe






32. Knowledge - Experience - Prudence (What part of Ethos)






33. Is necessary to defend the weak against the strong - Is useful and necessary to the state and the individual because you become a more thoughtful citizen and a more well-rounded person - Is useful to have the tools to recognize good arguments and def






34. An argument with true premises and valid form






35. After this - therefore on account of this






36. All A are B - all C are B - therefore no A are C






37. 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.






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






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






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






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






42. Term with lower (negative) value






43. Appeals from the character of the speaker






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






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






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






47. 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






48. The system for classifying disassociated terms (visually)






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






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