Final Flashcards Preview

Communication Studies 21 > Final > Flashcards

Flashcards in Final Deck (34):
1

Ad Hominem

attacking the person not the argument

2

Hasty Generalization

arguments that move from examples to generalizations too quickly or without sufficient rationale

3

Fallacy of Analogy

comparing two things that are more unalike than alike

4

Fallacy of Composition

Arguing that what is true of a part is true for the whole. Whole may not posses qualities of individual parts

5

Fallacy of Division

assuming that what is true of the whole is automatically true of the part. Part of the component may not posses the qualities of the whole

6

Correlation Mistaken for Causation

incorrectly asserting a casual link(when there is strong evidence of cause-effect relationship btw variables)
as opposed to just a correlation (when strong relationships btw two variables exist)
just b/c A happens after B does not mean B caused A

7

Red Herring

redirecting the argument to another issue; a diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

8

Ad Populum

appeal to popularity, bandwagon; implies we should do something because “most” people do it.

9

Proposition of Value

statement that asserts a principle, standard, or moral claim. Judges whether something is good/bad, ethical/unethical (SUBJECTIVE)

10

Proposition of Fact

statement that asserts a claim known as a certainty. Proposes whether something is true or false and can usually be resolved through empirical evidence.

11

Proposition of Policy

advocates a specific course of action; “should”.

12

Form for policy propositions

[agent/subject] + should + [action]

13

1st speaker

presents topic and stance, background info, team split and the team's main arguments

14

2nd speaker

refutes the 1st speakers main arguments

15

3rd speaker

defends their team's main arguments against 2nd speaker refutations

16

Types of Cross Examination Questions

Clarification, Warrant, Elaboration, Source

17

Types of Refutation

denial, mitigation, additional consideration

18

deliberate obfuscation

when opponent tries to disguise/conceal (evaluation)

19

euphemism

polite language used to avoid harsh words (evaluation)

20

equivocation

a word or phrase that takes a different meaning (evaluation)

21

ambiguity

language that is overly broad or unclear (evaluation)

22

selective exposure

listening to what we already agree on (noise)

23

distortion

shifting message into something we find more pleasing (noise)

24

intrapersonal argument

discussions in your head (noise)

25

externalities

distractions and other noise (noise)

26

internalities

your physical state (noise)

27

Primary Triad

claim, grounds, warrant

28

secondary triad

backing, modality/qualifier, rebuttal

29

Analyzing propositions of policy

Need/problem, cure/plan, advantage

30

Need/problem

how extensive is the problem?

31

Cure/Plan

what exactly must be done?
Agent: who is doing the plan? is agent appropriate?
Financing: Does it incur cost? How much?
Enforcement: How do we know the change will be put in place or followed?

32

Cohen's "For argument's sake"

argument-as-war
argument-as-performance
argument-as-proofs

33

argument-as-war

Dominates how we think about, act, and conduct arguments; (adversarial)
Deforming effects: Elevates tactics over substance, Magnifies US vs THEM, Outcomes: triumph or defeat
Prevents: deliberation, negotiation, compromise, and collaboration
Learning = losing (being educated in the argument and agreeing with the opposition, even though you got cognitive gain)

34

solution to argument-as-war

new type of arguer
one that can put themselves in the audience; where there is no winning or losing just good argumentation.