Comms test 2 review

Reasoning that argues that one thing or event in the past caused another thing or event to happen or will cause something to happen in the future, or that an action taken in the future will cause a particular outcome

Argumentation in which the conclusion is included in the premises; an argument that reasons from what is known with certainty in the premises to a conclusion that is known with certainty

An analogy that compares cases in differnt classifications

An argument that comes to a probable instead of an absolute conclusion, or that reasons from what is knownin the premises to a conclusion that is unknown in the premises

An analogy that compares cases within the same classification

(1) the thought process that leads to a conclusion; (2) the presentation of support for a claim in an argument

reasoning that makes a comparison between similar cases and infers that what is known about one is true of the other

reasoning that applies preexisting criteria to a subject and makes a judgement based on how well the subject fits the criteria

Reasoning that involves inferring a conclusion from specific cases

Reasoning that argues that two variables are so strongly related to each other that the presence or absence of one may be taken as an indication of the presence or absence of the other

the responsibility of each person in an argument to provide evidence and reasoning for each claim put forth

A stock issue of propositions of policy that argues what will happen beyond solving the harm. The advocate of the proposition argues that the plan will create benefits that will make it even more desirable. The opponent to the proposition argues that the plan will create unexpected harms that make the plan less desirable

A stock issue of proposition of fact and value that argues that the criteria are met, were met, or will be met, so the proposition is true

a claim with no support to justify its acceptance

a type of inherency argument that claims that the cause of a problem is the attitudes and motives of the people who perpetuate it

identifying the meaning of a term in an argument by referring to authoritative sources such as a dictionary or textbook

the responsibility of those opposed to proposition to dispute the claims, evidence, and reasoning that advocate has presented

An approach to arguing propositions of policy in which the advocate of the proposition argues that adoption of a plan will lead to advantages over the status quo, without arguing that there currently are significant harms

A refutation strategy for propositions of policy that admits that the status quo problems are significant but should be alleviated by making changes other than those called for by the proposition

a stock issue of propositions of fact and value that seeks to establish how to determine whether the proposition is true or whether a value is being achieved

a stock issue of propositions of fact or value that establishes what the proposition does and does not mean

a stock issue of propositions of policy that argues that something is wrong and calls for a policy change

a stock issue of propositions of policy that identifies the cause of the harm

a refutation strategy for prepositions of policy that argues that the status quo problems can be alleviated by making changes smaller than those called for by the proposition

Identifying the meanings of the terms by the way they are used in an argument or explaining them as they arise

a stock issue of propositions of policy that identifies exaclty what should be done to eliminate the harm in the status qu, and who should do it. Agent, Act, Agency, and cost.

(1) principle that a proposition or claim should not be accepted until sufficient evidence and reasoning have been provided to justify acceptance; (2) the recognition that the status quo will remain as it is until good reasons have been provided to change it

an argument that presents enough evidence and support that a person thinking critically ought to accept the proposition, at least until the argument is refuted

the declarative statement that an advocate intends to support. Always adcocates change. Harms, significance, inherecy, plan, and advantages.

a proposition that states that something is factually true, or will be factually true. Definition & Distiction, Criteria, and Application.

A proposition that argues in favor of a positive or negative evaluation about something

A stock issue of propositions of policy that argues that the harm is qualitaively or quantitaively severe enough to call for a policy change

A stock issue of propositions of policy that argues how much of the harm the plan will eliminate

Existing policies, attituds, and beliefs

issues that typically arise for various types of propositions. AdDressing all of the stock issues for a proposition generally leads to stronger arguments. Burden of Proof, Response, and Prima Ficia.

A type of inherency argument that claims that the cause of a problem is either the laws, regulations, and court decisions tha force it to happen, or the lack of laws, regulations, and court decisions to eliminate

The responsibility of the arguer in favor of the poposition to provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to justify acceptance of the proposition

A stock issue of propositions ofvalues that argues which value, or set of values, is most important for drawing a conclusion about the subject of he proposition

When someone who does not or more likely cannot know the truth presents their beliefs as certainty (Similar to fanaticism).

When someone give statistics or numerical information that is not explained or is purposefully misleading

USing an argument that says because something worked in the past it should continue to work

Using the ethos of a past speak (after dead) as a form of proof for a new unrelateed argument

Are arguments that the tie themselves to the audiences core values so that other arguments are seen as attacking these values

Not always religious. These are arguments that offer as their main source of evidence a belief in the speaker

Similar to skepticism, these are arguments that say if you are unable to prove something to authority then your argument is relegated to opinion

Things that are found together, not just sometimes

Statements made that contain support

Audience perfer? value supported? competing against? is this better?