all the CSK flashcards together

SECOND SESSION

analogy

analogy

explain the unfamiliar through the familiar

analysis

separating something into its elements to understand it better

spatial organization

focuses readers’ attention to one point and describes the object/person from that point

chronological organization

order of occurence in time

structural organization

divides a subject into its parts, types, elements and shows the relation between them

process analysis

explain how the subject happens, how to accomplish it

definition

says what something is and is not, specifying the characteristics

comparison and contrast

point out similarities and differences between ideas, objects etc.

cause and effect

explain why something happened or what it’s consequences were/will be or both

general to specific

scheme where the topic sentence comes first and the following sentences become specific

specific to general

the elements of a paragraph lead to a general conclusion

abstract to concrete

being vague then moving to a concrete example

concrete to abstract

moving from a concrete example to an abstract concept

problem-solution

introduces a problem and then proposes or explains a solution

countering the opposition

almost anything you can argue or claim in a paper can be refuted. Opposing views exist in every debate

question-answer

introduces a question and then proposes an answer to it

classification

involves things into groups based on their similarities

description

details the sensory qualities of a person, place, thing or feeling

narration

retells a significant sequence of events, usually in order of occurence

illustration

some ideas can be developed with illustration or simply with support-supplying detailed reasons or examples

parallellism

a way to achieve coherence by use of similar grammatical structures fro similar events of meaning within or among sentences

repetition of key terms

literary device that repeats the same words or phrases to make an idea clearer and more memorable

shift in perspective, person, tone

• a perspective = literary tool, serves as lens through which readers observe characters/events. Purpose = writer’s voice distinctive from others

• tone = attitude or approach author takes towards the subject. Tone may shift as perspective changes or as plot becomes more complex

climactic organization

an appeal to logic might be in climactic order, beginning with a general statement, presenting specific details in order of increasing importance, ending with a dramatic statement

anecdote

a short story about a real person or event, usually serving to make listeners laugh or ponder about a topic

irony

a figure of speech in which words are used in a way that their intended meaning from the actual meaning of the words

aporia

the expression of doubt

tonal ambiguity

conditions or statements not clear in tone

on the one hand ↔ on the other hand

there are 2 sides to something

argument

writing that attempts readers’ minds to an opinion, change readers’ own opinions or move them to action

3 main elements:

1. claim → what the argument’s about

2. evidence

3. assumptions (underlying beliefs)

premise

reasson, evidence, foundation or supporting claims for the conclusion in an argument

premise indicators

because, since, for, whereas, given that…

conclusion

the point of view, evaluation, judgement or belief that the argument is attempting to demonstrate

inferences

the conclusion of an argument is a generalization, you can then, by means of a deductive process, apply the generalisation to a particular case

inference indicators

as a result, hence, thus, so, consequently, we can infer that…

inductive argument

particular to general, 2 forms:

1. concluding with generalization

2. concluding with hypothesis

argument by authority

experts’ judgements, based on examination of the facts, often followed by citation (provides source)

These need to be relevant, accurate, representative to the text and adequate

argument by witness

argument uses a witness testimony

argument by generalization

argument with inductive reasoning, specific observations to generalization. The more evidence, the more probable the generalization is true

argument by cause

trying to make cause-effect relationship between two events

argument by sign

two or more things are so closely related that presence/absence of one directly means presence/absence of the other

probability

the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case

acceptability

a measure of whether we should accept, reject or demand further support for an individual premise

consistency

no contradicting premises, all the premises can be true at the same time

repeatability

a measure of the ability of the method to generate similar results for multiple preparations of the same sample

falsifiability

the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong

corrigibility

capable of being corrected or reformed

science as self-correcting way of knowing

we repeat experiments, don’t just accept something but try to make premises stronger by getting the same results

sufficiency

the premises sufficiently support the belief the conclusion is true

generalizability

the extent to which we can generalize sample results to teh bigger population

representativeness

it reflects the full range of the sample from which it is said to be drawn

representative sample

a subset of a population that seeks to accurately reflect the characteristics of the larger group

deductive argument

if a=b and b=c, then a=c

syllogism

a kind of logical argument, deductive reasoning, as long as premises (2/more) are true, conclusion drives logically and certainly from them

categorical syllogism

an argument consisting of exactly 3 propositions (2 premises and a conclusion)

hypothetical syllogism

a valid argument having a conditional statements for one/more of its premises

example: if I don’t wake up, I can’t go to work

disjunctive syllogism

a syllogism having a disjunctive (gescheiden) statement for one os it’s premises

example: I don’t choose this, I don’t choose that. I choose that, so not this

validity

truly represent the phenomenon you are claiming to measure

valid argument

truth of the premises logically guarantuees the truth of the conclusion

argument by analogy

claim that 2 things are alike in some ways (because 2 things are similar, what is true for one is also true for the other)

abduction

making a probable conclusion from what you know (logical assumption)

intuition

direct perception of truth/facts, independent from any reasoning process

rational persuasion

the use of an argument to cause another person to believe a conclusion

statement

a sentence that can be true or false

conclusion indicators

as a result, hence, consequently, so, to conclude…

rhetorical question

a question that has an implied answer and therefore functions as a statement

logos

the thetoric attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical

pathos

the rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions

ethos

the rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not)

rhetorical situation

any set of circumstances that involves at least one person using some sort of communication to modify the perspective of at least one other person

evidence

facts documentation or testimony used to strengthen a claim, support an argument or reach a conclusion

fact

is known or proven to be true

S-test

a means of evaluating an argument, according to which 3 conditions must be met:

1. satisfactory premise (acceptable)

2. supportive premise (relevant)

3. sufficient premise (adequate)

satisfactory (acceptable) premise

a premise that is true or there is good reason to believe is true

supportive (relevant) premise

a premise that is included in a given argument and suggests that the argument’s conclusion should be accepted

sufficient (adequate) premise

when and argument’s premises provide enough support for its conclusion such that, if its premises are satisfactory, acceptance of its conclusion is rational

enthymeme

an argument in which a premise or the conclusion is hidden

missing premise

a premise that is unstated but is required by the logical form of an argument

concealed/hidden premise

a claim that is logically relied upon as a premise in an argument, but that is left implicit or unstated

independent premise

premise that independently supports the conclusion; each premise offers some degree of separate support for the conclusion

dependent premise

a premise that works together with other premises to support the conclusion. Removing 1 premise will create a logical gap

satisfactory premise

a premise that is certainly true or at least reasonable to believe

relevant premise

a premise that is included in a given argument and has bearing on wether the argument should be accepted

positively relevant premise

a premise that is included in a given argument and suggests that the argument’s conclusion should be accepted

negatively relevant premise

a premise that is included in a given argument and suggests that the argument’s conclusion should not be accepted

irrelevant premise

a premise that is included in a given argument but has no bearing on whether the argument’s conclusion should be accepted

missing conclusion

a conclusion that is not explicitly stated

explanation

an attempt to show why some fact is true by appealing to contributing factors

argument as artifact

whan an argument is something that we can dissect or dress (cut open and eamine its parts)

argument as process

when an argument implies active participation in a dialogue oriented towards judgement, proof, resolution or persuasion with regard to a matter about which disagreement is either real or possible

simple argument

simple logic, premises followed by a conclusion

sub-argument

a part of an argument that provides indirect support for the main argument

illative core of an argument

4 elements to a good argument:

1. arguments have to be acceptable to the audience

2. relevance

3. sufficiency

4. dialectics: emphasis on anticipating and repsonding to objections (dialectical tier)

dialectical tier of an argument

emphasis on anticipating and responding to objections

absurd example

constructing an argument parallel to weak argument, but with true or plausible premises and an obviously false or absurd conclusion

counter example

(use only with weak generalisations that are unacceptable)

presenting and exception to the generalisation to show you shouldn’t rely on it

random sample

a part of the sampling technique in which each sample has an equal probability of being chosen, unbiased random sample is important for drawing conclusions

target population

the entire set of units for which the survey data are to be used to make inferences

personal testimony

a statement made by an individual about his/her personal experience

common knowledge

refers to info that an average educated reader would accept without needing the validation of a source reference

statements considered common knowledge don’t need a citation