Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Advocacy & Opposition Ch. 1-3 > Ch. 8, 9, 10, & 11 > Flashcards

Ch. 8, 9, 10, & 11 Flashcards

1
Q

Hasty Generalization

A

jumping to a conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Transfer

A

extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Fallacy of composition

A

when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Fallacy of division

A

what is true of the whole will be true of its parts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Fallacy of refutation

A

Straw Man Argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument

A

setting other person up for failure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Non sequiturs

A

Does not follow logically

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Post Hoc

A

Does not follow temporally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Circular Reasoning

A

a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Simple evasion

A

changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Ad hominem argument

A

Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost

A

Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Seizing on a trivial point

A

When you locate another’s weak or indefensible argument and magnify it out of all proportion to discredit his entire position on the proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)

A

Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Slippery Slope

A

If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Red Herring

A

something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignoratium argument)

A

ask the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny its validity Example: is god real or not?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Appeal to the People (ad populum argument

A

jumping on the bandwagon/ ask an audience to accept a claim because it is supported by majority opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Appeal to Emotion

A

pity and fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Appeal to Authority

A

encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Appeal to Humor

A

either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Reduction ad absurdum

A

absurd meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Appeal to Tradition

A

ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Ambiguity

A

unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Equivocation

A

more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Emotionally Loaded Language

A

generates an emotional response/ becomes a problem when we use terms that show more about our feelings on the issues tan about the rational basis from which those feelings derive or when we use emotion as the sole means to alter the belief or behavior of others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Technical Jargon

A

words audience does not understand/ becomes a problem when the audience is overwhelmed with too many new terms or when it is used to impress the audience or replace sound reasoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Effect arguments

A

forces on one or more units of argument that call the audience’s attention to the results, outcome, or consequences of the relationship alleged by the proposition of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Inherency arguments

A

often deals with attitudes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Preempting Opposing Arguments

A

Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Preemptive arguments

A

arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Core American values

A

Acceptance of diversity Belief in hard work and productivity Child-centeredness Community and charity Cooperation with other countries Hunger for common ground Individualism Patriotism Pragmatism and compromise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Pragmatism

A

desire to get things accomplished

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Values in Conflict

A

Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Value change

A

events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Engines of change (societal values)

A

-New information is introduced -Political and ideological change -Erosion of a value – occurs when large numbers or people resist acting in accordance with a value -Change in the operating environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Value redistribution

A

society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value

38
Q

Value restandardization

A

the meaning of “quality of life” changes

39
Q

Value implementation retargeting

A

the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it

40
Q

Defining the value object

A

By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the value object to be located within this hierarchy? Do indicators of the effect, significance, and inherence of the value object show that it conforms to the criteria?

41
Q

Value hierarchy

A

complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience

42
Q

Measuring the value object

A

Effect Significance Inherency

43
Q

Opposing the proposition of value

A

Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action

44
Q

Advocating propositions of policy

A

Advocating the first stock issue- Is there a reason for change in a manner generally suggested by the policy proposition? -Identify the disparity What’s the nature of the disparity? How severe is the problem? -Quantify the disparity How extensive is the disparity? -Characterize the consequences Does this disparity harm to something or someone? -Establish inherency Is it inherent? -Advocating the second stock issue- Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change? Change Mechanism Financing Enforcement -Advocating the third stock issue- what are the consequences of the proposed change? Demonstrate solvency Overcome inherency Establish workability Identify subsidiary effects -Argument in action

45
Q

Opposing propositions of policy

A

-Establish strategy -Refute the reason for change Challenge inherency Minor repairs must be attainable within the foreseeable future Minor repair must be attainable without benefit of a structural or attitudinal change Minor repairs are subject to the same standards of proof, insofar as their solvency, inherency, and workability are concerned, as the policy proposed by the advocate. Minor repairs should not themselves be interpretable as a legitimate part of the policy proposition -Refute the consequence of change Question solvency- does is actually solve the problem? Identify barriers Dispute workability- time/costs. Will it be put into effect smoothly? Present disadvantages- treats people differently? Critique the proposal or proposition -Offer a counterproposal -Argument in action

46
Q

jumping to a conclusion

A

Hasty Generalization

47
Q

extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible

A

Transfer

48
Q

when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole

A

Fallacy of composition

49
Q

what is true of the whole will be true of its parts

A

Fallacy of division

50
Q

Straw Man Argument

A

Fallacy of refutation

51
Q

setting other person up for failure

A

Mischaracterization and rebuttal of the argument

52
Q

Does not follow logically

A

Non sequiturs

53
Q

Does not follow temporally

A

Post Hoc

54
Q

a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

A

Circular Reasoning

55
Q

changing the subject for no apparent reason, or bypassing a critical issue, diverts attention from the issues central to the argument

A

Simple evasion

56
Q

Attacking the person not the argument (personal attack)

A

Ad hominem argument

57
Q

Occurs when an arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one

A

Shifting ground/ Moving the goalpost

58
Q

When you locate another’s weak or indefensible argument and magnify it out of all proportion to discredit his entire position on the proposition

A

Seizing on a trivial point

59
Q

Choice a or choice b” but there can be more than two options

A

Forcing a Dichotomy (false Dilemma)

60
Q

If a, then B, C, D, E, F, G

A

Slippery Slope

61
Q

something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting

A

Red Herring

62
Q

ask the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny its validity Example: is god real or not?

A

Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignoratium argument)

63
Q

jumping on the bandwagon/ ask an audience to accept a claim because it is supported by majority opinion

A

Appeal to the People (ad populum argument

64
Q

pity and fear

A

Appeal to Emotion

65
Q

encourage reliance on some ultimate source of knowledge in place of reasoning as the basis of a claim

A

Appeal to Authority

66
Q

either fail to make a serious point or reduce another’s claim to its most absurd level

A

Appeal to Humor

67
Q

absurd meaning

A

Reduction ad absurdum

68
Q

ask an audience to accept a claim because it represents a customary belief or course of action

A

Appeal to Tradition

69
Q

unclear/ occurs when a term is used in legitimate but different senses by two or more persons involved in argumentation

A

Ambiguity

70
Q

more than just one meaning/ occurs when an individual uses a term in different ways in the context of the same argument.

A

Equivocation

71
Q

generates an emotional response/ becomes a problem when we use terms that show more about our feelings on the issues tan about the rational basis from which those feelings derive or when we use emotion as the sole means to alter the belief or behavior of others

A

Emotionally Loaded Language

72
Q

words audience does not understand/ becomes a problem when the audience is overwhelmed with too many new terms or when it is used to impress the audience or replace sound reasoning

A

Technical Jargon

73
Q

forces on one or more units of argument that call the audience’s attention to the results, outcome, or consequences of the relationship alleged by the proposition of fact

A

Effect arguments

74
Q

often deals with attitudes

A

Inherency arguments

75
Q

Consider the proposition from the opponent’s perspective

A

Preempting Opposing Arguments

76
Q

arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before he has a chance to raise them.

A

Preemptive arguments

77
Q

Acceptance of diversity Belief in hard work and productivity Child-centeredness Community and charity Cooperation with other countries Hunger for common ground Individualism Patriotism Pragmatism and compromise

A

Core American values

78
Q

desire to get things accomplished

A

Pragmatism

79
Q

Generational difference Value hierarchy differences Cultural differences Societal difference worldwide

A

Values in Conflict

80
Q

events can influence what is valued at a particular point in time by a particular culture

A

Value change

81
Q

-New information is introduced -Political and ideological change -Erosion of a value – occurs when large numbers or people resist acting in accordance with a value -Change in the operating environment

A

Engines of change (societal values)

82
Q

society adopts the value of a minority group that has successfully promoted a different way of attributing importance to that value

A

Value redistribution

83
Q

the meaning of “quality of life” changes

A

Value restandardization

84
Q

the value itself has not undergone change; what has changed is the manner in which we pursue it

A

Value implementation retargeting

85
Q

By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the value object to be located within this hierarchy? Do indicators of the effect, significance, and inherence of the value object show that it conforms to the criteria?

A

Defining the value object

86
Q

complex set of attitudes and core values shared by members of a field or audience

A

Value hierarchy

87
Q

Effect Significance Inherency

A

Measuring the value object

88
Q

Establishing strategy Examining definitions and hierarchy Challenging the criteria Refuting the measurement Argument in action

A

Opposing the proposition of value

89
Q

Advocating the first stock issue- Is there a reason for change in a manner generally suggested by the policy proposition? -Identify the disparity What’s the nature of the disparity? How severe is the problem? -Quantify the disparity How extensive is the disparity? -Characterize the consequences Does this disparity harm to something or someone? -Establish inherency Is it inherent? -Advocating the second stock issue- Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change? Change Mechanism Financing Enforcement -Advocating the third stock issue- what are the consequences of the proposed change? Demonstrate solvency Overcome inherency Establish workability Identify subsidiary effects -Argument in action

A

Advocating propositions of policy

90
Q

-Establish strategy -Refute the reason for change Challenge inherency Minor repairs must be attainable within the foreseeable future Minor repair must be attainable without benefit of a structural or attitudinal change Minor repairs are subject to the same standards of proof, insofar as their solvency, inherency, and workability are concerned, as the policy proposed by the advocate. Minor repairs should not themselves be interpretable as a legitimate part of the policy proposition -Refute the consequence of change Question solvency- does is actually solve the problem? Identify barriers Dispute workability- time/costs. Will it be put into effect smoothly? Present disadvantages- treats people differently? Critique the proposal or proposition -Offer a counterproposal -Argument in action

A

Opposing propositions of policy

Advocacy & Opposition Ch. 1-3 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions