coms 145 midterm II study guide

Study Guide: Midterm Part II

Chapter Three

● Primary Evidence: Evidence that comes from the original source who gathered the data

● Secondary Evidence: Evidence in which some sort of intermediary has interrupted the original, primary evidence 

● Direct Evidence: Evidence that relates directly to the claim being made

● Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that relates indirectly to the claim being made 

● Positive Evidence: The presence of evidence to support a claim

● Negative Evidence: The lack of evidence used as evidence for a claim

● Willing Evidence: Evidence that is given freely by an advocate, sometimes with a vested interest in mind

● Reluctant Evidence: When a source presents a point of view or position that would not seem to be in their best interest - for example a republican endorsing a democrat

● Explain the two main issues with statistical evidence on page 51

• How data is gathered

• How data is presented or conveyed

● What are the two key tests for testimony evidence on page 53

• Is the source really an expert?

• Is the source unbiased?

● The Ten Tests for Evidence: Pages 55-57 (These will be matching!)

• Relevance: How directly evidence relates to the argument

• Specificity: Level of detail and precision in evidence

• Objectivity: Evidence free from personal bias

• Reliability: Consistency and accuracy of the source

• Access: How available the evidence is to be verified

• Expertise: Credibility of the person providing evidence

• Recency/Timeliness: How up-to-date the evidence is

• External Consistency: Agreement with other established facts

• Internal Consistency: Logical coherence within the evidence

• Cumulativeness: Strength in supporting conclusions through multiple sources

Chapter 10

● Explain” The “Steps in Refutation” pp.154-155

• Step 1: State the opposing argument, clearly and fairly

• Step 2: Preview your response

• Step 3: Do the refutation 

• Step 4: Show the impact of what you've done

● Explain:“The Four Main Refutational Responses.” pp. 155-159

• The claim is not true

• The claim is true, but insignificant 

• The claim is true, but irrelevant 

• The claim is true, but leads to a different conclusion 

Be able to Identify:

• The Claim is Not True: Challenge the factual basis

• The Claim is True but Insignificant: Minimize its impact

• The Claim is True but Irrelevant: Show how it doesn’t support the conclusion

• The Claim is True but Leads to a Different Conclusion: Redirect its meaning

● “Even if” Response: to refute an argument by saying that its not true, but even if it were true, its still unsound

● Pre-empting an argument: refuting an argument before the opposition even presents it

● Formulate a Dilemma: A refutation strategy in which you formulate two possible outcomes or aspects of an opponent's position, and both are undesirable 

• Defining by Negation: Explain what something is by stating what it isn’t

• Defining by Authority: Cite expert definitions

• Defining by Function: Explain something’s purpose

• Defining by Etymology: Use word origins for clarity

Chapter 11

● Stare Decisis: In legal argument, a concept that is similar to presumption; it literally means “let the decision stand” because an established legal precedent exists  

● De Novo Argument: in legal discourse, an argument where one is “starting fresh” not using legal precedent as a warrant but rather, some “new” idea or line of argument 

● Grounding text: In religious discourse, a particular source that is considered to be the ultimate authority on an issue

● Majoritarianism: The belief in politics that we should be mindful of what the majority wants

● Middle of the Roadism: The belief in politics that extreme positions should be avoided

● Paradox: A statement that is intentionally contradictory yet is designed to make a point

● Empirical Data: evidence that is based on actual observation and measurement, not speculation or abstract 

In Slides:

• Social Judgment Theory: Explains how opinions change based on existing attitudes

• Disinterestedness: Acting without personal bias

• Anecdotal Evidence: Using personal stories instead of broader data

• Allegory: A symbolic narrative conveying a deeper meaning

Written Portion

You will read a short article,editorial or essay. The prompt will ask you to identify as many fallacies as possible and explain why the logic of the arguments are flawed. The article will look very familiar! The fallacies you WILL see in the writing will be:

• Ad Populum (Bandwagon Effect): Assuming something is true because many believe it

• Tu Quoque: Dismissing criticism by accusing the accuser of the same fault

• Equivocation: Using ambiguous language to mislead

• Appeal to Authority: Using an expert’s opinion without relevant expertise

• Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing something is true because it hasn’t been proven false

• False Dichotomy: Presenting two choices when more exist

• Post Hoc: Assuming causation from correlation

• Weak Analogy: Comparing things that are not sufficiently similar

• Ad Hoc: Making up justifications after the fact

• Straw Man: Misrepresenting an argument to refute it more easily

• Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument

• Slippery Slope: Claiming one event will lead to extreme consequences

• Red Herring: Distracting from the main issue