English 102 Rhetoric and Composition Assessment Study Guide Flashcards

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/62

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Vocabulary flashcards generated from the English 102 Assessment Study Guide covering core rhetorical vocabulary, appeals, logical fallacies, propaganda, bias, research methods, and academic writing concepts.

Last updated 3:11 AM on 10/1/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai
Chat

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

63 Terms

1
New cards

Rhetoric

Using communication to influence what an audience thinks, feels or does.

2
New cards

Genre

A kind, style, category or type of communication with recognizable conventions, such as a research article, advertisement or email.

3
New cards

Literacy

Knowledge and skills for understanding and using information in a particular area. Literacy includes more than reading words.

4
New cards

Bias

A tendency or partiality that shapes what we notice, believe or judge.

5
New cards

Analysis

Breaking something into parts to understand how it works.

6
New cards

Synthesis

Connecting parts or sources to develop a larger understanding.

7
New cards

Stakeholder

A person or group with something to gain or lose from an issue.

8
New cards

Rhetorical situation

The circumstances of a message: who communicates, to whom, for what purpose and in what context.

9
New cards

Decorum

Fitting your language, appearance and behavior to your audience’s expectations.

10
New cards

Discourse community

A group that shares goals and ways of communicating.

11
New cards

Lexis

Specialized vocabulary used by a discourse community.

12
New cards

Ethos

A rhetorical appeal centered on credibility and character, addressing why an audience should trust the communicator.

13
New cards

Pathos

A rhetorical appeal centered on emotion and feelings, addressing what a message makes the audience feel.

14
New cards

Logos

A rhetorical appeal centered on evidence and reasoning, addressing whether the reasoning makes sense.

15
New cards

Kairos

A rhetorical appeal centered on timing, place and context, addressing why a message matters right now.

16
New cards

Concession

Acknowledging a valid point in another person’s position to make them more receptive.

17
New cards

Forensic rhetoric

Past-tense rhetoric focused on blame and determining who did something.

18
New cards

Demonstrative rhetoric

Present-tense rhetoric focused on values and determining who is good or bad.

19
New cards

Deliberative rhetoric

Future-tense rhetoric focused on choices and deciding what should be done.

20
New cards

Logical fallacy

A flaw in reasoning that weakens an argument.

21
New cards

Bandwagon (appeal to popularity)

A logical fallacy that treats popularity as proof.

22
New cards

Appeal to authority

A logical fallacy that treats a famous or authoritative person’s claim as enough proof without checking relevant expertise or evidence.

23
New cards

False dilemma

A logical fallacy that presents only two choices when other options exist; also called black-and-white thinking or two extremes.

24
New cards

Slippery slope

A logical fallacy that claims one step will lead to extreme consequences without enough support for the chain.

25
New cards

Ad hominem

A fallacy or propaganda technique that attacks the person instead of responding to the argument.

26
New cards

Straw man

A logical fallacy that stays on topic but distorts someone’s position into an easier, exaggerated argument to attack.

27
New cards

False cause (post hoc)

A logical fallacy that assumes events that happen together, or one after another, prove causation.

28
New cards

Appeal to ignorance

A logical fallacy that claims something is true because it has not been disproven, or false because it has not been proven.

29
New cards

Hasty generalization

A logical fallacy that draws a broad conclusion from too little or unrepresentative evidence.

30
New cards

Tu quoque

A logical fallacy that deflects criticism by pointing to the critic’s hypocrisy.

31
New cards

Red herring

A logical fallacy that leaves the topic and introduces an unrelated issue that distracts from the main argument.

32
New cards

Appeal to tradition

A logical fallacy that claims something is right simply because it has always been done this way.

33
New cards

Loaded question

A logical fallacy that asks a question with an unproven assumption built into it.

34
New cards

Media literacy

The ability to examine, evaluate and use media thoughtfully across written text, images, audio, video or combinations of these modes.

35
New cards

Misinformation

False or inaccurate information shared without the intent to deceive.

36
New cards

Disinformation

False information deliberately created or shared to deceive.

37
New cards

Propaganda

Communication designed to shape beliefs or behavior in support of an agenda, often through emotional, selective or misleading presentation.

38
New cards

Name calling

A propaganda technique that uses negative labels to encourage rejection without examining evidence.

39
New cards

Glittering generalities

A propaganda technique that uses attractive but vague words, such as “freedom” or “progress,” in place of specifics.

40
New cards

Plain folks

A propaganda technique that presents a speaker as an ordinary person just like the audience.

41
New cards

Ad populum

A propaganda technique that appeals to the audience’s group loyalties or prejudices instead of the merits of the issue.

42
New cards

Transfer

A propaganda technique that borrows the feelings associated with a respected or disliked symbol, person or institution.

43
New cards

Faulty cause and effect

A propaganda technique that claims a causal relationship without adequate evidence.

44
New cards

False analogy

A propaganda technique that compares things whose relevant differences undermine the comparison.

45
New cards

Begging the question

A propaganda technique or fallacy that uses the conclusion as its own support.

46
New cards

Card stacking

A propaganda technique that selects favorable evidence while leaving out important contrary evidence.

47
New cards

Testimonial

A propaganda technique that uses an endorsement to persuade, especially when the endorser lacks relevant expertise.

48
New cards

Implicit bias

Automatic associations that influence judgment without conscious intent.

49
New cards

Explicit bias

Conscious, openly endorsed preferences or attitudes.

50
New cards

Confirmation bias

Seeking or favoring information that supports what you already believe.

51
New cards

Affinity bias

Favoring people who seem similar to you.

52
New cards

Perception bias

Interpreting people through stereotypes or assumptions about groups.

53
New cards

Halo effect

Letting one positive quality shape unrelated judgments.

54
New cards

Positionality

How your identities, experiences and social position shape your perspective.

55
New cards

Believing Game

The practice of trying to understand a perspective before criticizing it and asking oneself what evidence could change one's mind.

56
New cards

Scholarly source

A source produced by experts mainly for an academic audience.

57
New cards

Peer reviewed source

A source evaluated by other experts before publication.

58
New cards

Credible source

A source that is trustworthy and appropriate for the particular claim you need to support.

59
New cards

Abstract

A short summary of the whole article: question, method and main findings.

60
New cards

DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

A persistent identifier used to locate and cite an item.

61
New cards

SIFT

A four-move source evaluation method: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, and Trace claims to the original.

62
New cards

Rhetorical analysis

An explanation of how a text's choices work on an audience and how effectively they support its purpose, as distinguished from a summary.

63
New cards

Friendly skeptic

A peer reviewer who gives specific, respectful feedback, identifies missing evidence or perspectives, and asks questions to help a writer strengthen their argument.