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. 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'






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






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






4. Associated words or ideas with a vehicle or tenor






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






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






7. _____ thought that rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion






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






9. Taking the absence of evidence against something as justification for believing that thing is true.






10. 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?






11. 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.






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






13. Arguing without evidence that a given event is the first of a series of steps that will inevitably lead to some outcome.






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






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






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






17. All A are B -no B are C - therefore - no A are C






18. Oppostite of Litotes






19. 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.






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






21. Opposite of Epanalepsis






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






23. 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'






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






25. After this - therefore on account of this






26. Faling to bring relevant evidence to bear on an argument






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






28. Beginning repeated






29. Repetition of the same word or groups of words at the beginning of successive clauses - sentences - or lines.






30. Uses emotional appeal instead of evidence to argue






31. 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






32. 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)






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






34. 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.






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






36. _____ thought that the most worthy study is one that advances the student's ability to speak and deliberate on affairs of the state.






37. What places do procedural stasis usually occupy in an argument?






38. 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'






39. 'What is true in this case is true in general' or 'What is true in general is true in this case' Is a warrant for what kind of argument?






40. Juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas






41. Term with higher (positive) value






42. 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'






43. The list that builds






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






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






46. Incorrectly assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole






47. Ending repeated






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






49. An argument with true premises and valid form






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