Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
COM 267L Final Exam
Transcript of COM 267L Final Exam
Final Exam Chapter 13 GOOD LUCK ON THE DEBATE EXAM! Semantic: Auto executive recalls cars with reclining seats THINK CONTEXT
Syntactic: Campus police were ordered to stop drinking after midnight THINK PHRASING & GRAMMMAR
Equivocation: a term that during the middle of an argument switches meanings
Ex. “Travis said the movie was good because the critics liked it. But it’s obvious it wasn’t good because the studio lost money.” (Term ‘good’ has two meanings.) Chapter 10 Antecedent: IF ------> Consequent: THEN
Ex. “The government said it would intervene only if problems arose in the region. Problems arose, so the government intervened. “
Affirming antecedent, denying the consequent: Conclusion that we derive MUST stay within the boundaries of the argument.
Ex. “If Dakota studies hard, he will pass. He passed, therefore he must have studied hard.” False.
Ex. “If Ally studies hard, she will pass. She did not pass, so she did not study.” True. Chapter 11 Categorical Argument: They occur whenever you claim that any given X belongs in category Y. Does skateboarding belong in the category “true sports”? Should Karate Kid X be rated PG-13 or R?
Enthymeme: an informally stated syllogism with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion.
Ex. "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." - Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, 1988.
The unstated assumption is: Jack Kennedy was a great man, and you are not a great man. Chapter 14 Literal analogy: Compares two like things.
Ex: Chanel's house and Tina's house are both ranch homes with two bathrooms. They probably both use copper plumbing.
Figurative analogy: Compares two unlike things.
Ex: A computer's CPU is like a human brain because they both make decisions. RAM is like short term memory, and hard disk storage is like long term memory. A computer, then, probably experiences emotion like a human brain. Chapter 10 Chapter 10 Sufficient Conditions: Several possibilities for causes, Ex. “Barnes is on fire, because of X,Y, or Z.”
Necessary Conditions: HAS to be included, otherwise event would not occur.
Ex. “Barnes is on fire, because of OXYGEN.” Argument from Direction:
Ex. “Libby smoked weed, therefore she will use harder drugs later.”
Exclusive Disjuncts: Two cannot be true at the same time, Ex. Car can’t be blue and red at the same time
Disjunctive Argument: consists of an either-or statement leading to a conclusion:
Ex. 1. Either Kevin is the enemy or Austin is the enemy
2. Kevin is not the enemy
3. Therefore Austin is the enemy Chapter 10 False Dilemma/Dichotomy: occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
Ex. “You’re either with me, or you’re against me”.This form of rhetoric is used to persuade or even threaten, but it ignores the fact that the individual or group addressed may have a neutral opinion towards the speaker. Chapter 14 A fortiori Analogy: Argument from stronger reason
Ex. If it has been established that a person is deceased, then one can, with equal or greater certainty, argue that the person is not breathing.
Dangerous Precedent: Upholding a statute or idea that could lead to bad repercussions in the future.
Metonymy: The use of an object to represent something bigger
Ex. “England refers to the ‘crown’” Chapter 15 Hypothesis: Evaluate and test
Casual arguments : Ex. "Ecstasy leads to depression"
This is a casual argument because it contains a cause and effect demonstration.
Arguing from Correlation Alone: fallacy; attributing cause simply on the basis of events occurring together. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation.
Post Hoc/Arguing from Succession: fallacy; Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
Therefore, C caused E.
Ex. "A law in Colorado legalized recreational weed. The next day, Matt robbed an all male exotic dancing club. Therefore, the law should be repealed. Chapter 16 Arguments from principle: An argument that affirms that we should abide by values, principals, and duties, and avoid actions that violate the same.
Arguments from quantity: An argument that affirms numerical considerations as an index of significance.
Arguments from quality: An argument that expresses a preference for the unique, the beautiful, the rare, or the unusual. Chapter 17 Essential Nature: Arguments that focuses on the essence or unchanging nature of an organization, person, or object.
Argument from Function: Locates the essential nature through its social or natural function.
Person/Act Argument: An argument that looks to a person's or group's actions to define it's essential nature.
Argument from Intent: Affirms the essential nature by focusing on the original intent of the creator or author.
Visual Argument: Argument is conveyed through images or objects rather than words. Chapter 19 Inherency: Issue of whether a problem is caused by the present system, and whether the present system can solve the problem
Structural Inherency: A law or policy which prevents the plan from being adopted. For example, if your plan was to legalize drugs, the numerous anti-drug laws would be the structural inherency.
Prima Facie Case: A case in which the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of his or her conclusion that the case can go to a jury
Attitudinal Inherency: Attitudes within the status quo which are opposed to the plan. With a plan to legalize drugs, there are also numerous attitudes against such a law. Chapter 19
Fallacies Video Hillman Showed in Class: Chapter 10 Lincoln-Douglas
Debate Format 1AC (first Affirmative Constructive): A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic
Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg: You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
1NC (first Negative Constructive): A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic. Attack and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff: Ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed –
1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal): Respond to the Neg Observations, show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
NR (Negative Rebuttal): Respond to latest Affirmative arguments, Aff has failed to carry the burden of proof
2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal): Respond to final Negative arguments. Summarize the debate and show the audience how the Aff position is superior – and the Aff has carried the burden of proof