Midterm Review

Question 1

euphemisms

Answer 1

convey a positive tone

• the company is deciding to downsize (instead of deciding to fire employees)
• improvement=learning opportunity

Question 2

dysphemism

Answer 2

convey a negative tone

• company is going to fire employees
• screw up=mistake

Question 3

rhetorical definition

Answer 3

defining terms and providing explanations

Question 4

rhetorical explanation

Answer 4

defining terms and providing explanations can also convey rhetoric–after the fact

• the WHY
• Jane made it through MLS program because she has what it takes to be a good student

Question 5

stereotypes

Answer 5

all people in the same group act, think, or believe similarly

Question 6

innuendo

Answer 6

attributing a behavior to someone without explicitly stating it (indirect accusation or attribution)

Question 7

loaded questions

Answer 7

type of innuendo posed as a question designed to implicate by its asking
-Ty was cheating on his chem test yesterday. Jack, weren’t you siting by Ty during the test?

Question 8

weaseling

Answer 8

watering down a response by not taking a specific stance, or giving yourself an “out”
-Jack’s response: I usually sit by Ty in chem, but I don’t remember if I sat by him that day

Question 9

downplaying

Answer 9

an attempt to diminish the importance of someone or something
-I didn’t hit him THAT hard (sibling fight)

Question 10

ridicule

Answer 10

to laugh at someone in a condescending manner, which discredits position or standing
-talking down to someone

Question 11

hyperbole

Answer 11

excessive exaggeration in explanation or definition

–It’s so fluffy I’m doing to die

Question 12

rhetorical analogies/proof surrogates

Answer 12

improper comparisons and/or improper descriptions of evidence
–when comparing something, the comparison is something completely separate and not related

Question 13

cultural competency

Answer 13

having the knowledge, skills, and abilities to understand how history, culture and context frame decisions
–includes gender/sexual orientation, economic background, sociologic, race/ethnicity, religion

Question 14

cultural awareness

Answer 14

knowing that other cultures exist, are different than yours, and affect how interactions are interpreted

Question 15

cultural sensitivity

Answer 15

altering how you interact with others to alleviate any possible misinterpretation

Question 16

cultural education

Answer 16

working to gain a greater awareness of others culture, verbal and non-verbal difference in communications, and self knowledge of how your verbal and nonverbal patterns are perceived by others

Question 17

outrage argument

Answer 17

inflammatory words followed by a conclusion, that may or may not follow from the inflammatory words (anger substituted for logic)

Question 18

scapegoating

Answer 18

assigning blame to a person or group for a large or persistent problem

Question 19

scare tactics

Answer 19

using fear in place of logic to make an argument (alternative to scapegoating)

Question 20

pity tactics

Answer 20

same but with compassion as the response

Question 21

subjectivist fallacy

Answer 21

believing something is true because one thinks it is true

Question 22

rationalization

Answer 22

using a false pretext to satisfy our own interest

Question 23

relativism

Answer 23

assuming one society’s culture is as good as another, and so if that one culture’s claims are true it must be true in our culture as well

Question 24

red herrings

Answer 24

adding a new topic to the conversation to distract from the original point
-includes Straw Man and Appeal to Emotion, Argumentum Ad Hominem

Question 25

smoke screen

Answer 25

adding a new topic to conversation making it more difficult to focus on original point

Question 26

ad hominem

Answer 26

accusing someone making a claim of a law or misdeed–by making the accusation you hope to reduce the credibility of the person making the claim, even if the flaw has nothing to do with the claim

Question 27

fallacy

Answer 27

is a mistake in reasoning, an argument that doesn’t really support or prove the contention it it supposed to support/prove

Question 28

relevance fallacy

Answer 28

when speaker tries to support/prove a point by brining up something irrelevant

Question 29

Argumentum Ad Hominum

Answer 29

speaker attempts to dismiss someone’s position by dismissing the person

Question 30

poisoning the well

Answer 30

occurs when speaker or writer attempts to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about the person’s character/circumstance

Question 31

guilt by association

Answer 31

when a speaker tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don’t like has that belief

Question 32

genetic fallacy

Answer 32

speaker argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself automatically renders it false
-view should be rejected b/c of its origin

Question 33

straw man

Answer 33

occurs when speaker attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it
-someone transforms your position into one that nobody would accept

Question 34

false dilemma

Answer 34

someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
-speaker does not present all the options

Question 35

line drawing

Answer 35

when speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal-clear line can be drawn b/w two things, or else there is no difference b/w them
-speaker can assume that–since we cannot say exactly how many dollars a person must have in order to be ‘rich’, then we can never say that person is ‘rich’

Question 36

misplacing burden of proof

Answer 36

when people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof
-depends on context–if the issue is factual, the side making the more outlandish claim has the burden of proof

Question 37

appeal to ignorance

Answer 37

someone asserts that we should believe a claim b/c nobody has proved it false
-nobody has proved ghosts don’t exist; therefore they do

Question 38

begging the question

Answer 38

speaker is guilty of begging the question logically when he or she tries to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amount to repackaging of the very contention in question

Question 39

appeal to emotion

Answer 39

speaker “supports” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by producing a real argument

Question 40

argument from outrage

Answer 40

attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than by giving us a relevant argument

Question 41

scare tactics

Answer 41

occurs when a speaker trues to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion

Question 42

appeal to pity

Answer 42

occurs when speaker tries to convince us of something by arousing our pity rather than by giving relevant argument

Question 43

irrelevant conclusion

Answer 43

relevance fallacies that do not fit comfortably into the above categories
-“I don’t think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately”

Question 44

building blocks of critical thinking

Answer 44

claims, issues, arguments

Question 45

claim

Answer 45

statements that are true or false, sentence or explanation that is fact

Question 46

issues

Answer 46

always need to turn into a claim, aren’t precise

Question 47

3 parts of arguments

Answer 47

• premise: sets up what you need to know
• conclusion: what they want you to believe
• information: is in between

Question 48

inductive reasoning

Answer 48

perspective that is specific to general–patients and students think this way

Question 49

inductive reasoning process

Answer 49

• start with problem: ONE PERSON’S EXPERIENCE
• look at specific outcome that person had
• assess comparability–how if this person like others?
• generalizing up–one person becomes example–other people can watch this person in order to avoid something bad or achieve something good
• general rule of outcome–applies to someone else

Question 50

can inductive experience be wrong?

Answer 50

NO–never wrong

Question 51

strong inductive reason

Answer 51

if premise provides more support for conclusion

Question 52

weak inductive reason

Answer 52

if they don’t fit you personally

Question 53

deductive reasoning

Answer 53

general to specific–advisors and providers think this way

Question 54

deductive reasoning process

Answer 54

• start with general experience
• leads to general outcome that should apply to everyone
• assess comparability
• scale down–see where everyone fits
• specific conclusion based on where they fit

Question 55

can deductive reasoning be right or wrong?

Answer 55

yes–general conclusion applies to everyone–can be inaccuracies or be right–it depends

Question 56

valid deductive reason

Answer 56

if it is impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false–internal consistency

Question 57

sounds deductive reason

Answer 57

if the premise of a valid argument is true–if its right at the beginnings its sound–argument has been demonstrated