Study Guide for Test 2

Dr. = Gass

HCOM= 235

Fall= 2009

Study Guide for Test 2

Test 2 will consist of 50- 60 multiple choice questions. Bring a Sc= antron 882 E answer sheet. The questions will cover material since Test 1. The= study guide below highlights key terms and concepts you will need to know. You can access the class lecture material at my website: = http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass

Argumentative Burdens (Chapter 2)

rational man, reasonable person standard

presumption, p. 27-30

artificial presumption,= p. 27

&= nbsp; natural presumption, p. 27

&= nbsp; presumption as a decision rule, p. 28

&= nbsp; presumption as a communication convention, p. 28<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; presumption as hypothesis testing, p. 28-30=

burden of proof, p. 31-32

who has the burden of proof?

in everyday arguments, the advocate has the burden of proof (the person advancing an argument must provided good and sufficient reasons

in criminal law= , the prosecution has the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt standard)

in science, the investigator has the burden of proof (p < .05 level of statistical significance)

burden of rebuttal (or burden of clash)<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; once a prima facie case is presented, the opponent has= an obligation to refute it

prima facie case, p. 32-33=

&= nbsp; “at first glance”

&= nbsp; absent any refutation

field dependent arguments<= /p>

&= nbsp; law: beyond a reasonable doubt standard

&= nbsp; science: p < .05 standard for statistical significa= nce

&= nbsp; journalism: two independent sources justify a story

field invariant arguments<= /p>

&= nbsp; analogy

&= nbsp; causal reasoning

&= nbsp; sign reasoning

&= nbsp; shared values

Arguing Construc= tively (no textbook chapter)

Avoiding arguments doesn’t help

&nb= sp; = Arguing gets issues out in the open, on the table

&nb= sp; = Arguing let’s people know where they stand in the relationship

&nb= sp; = Couples who report high relationship satisfaction arguing frequently over specific issues

Rules for arguing effectively=

&nb= sp; = Deal with one issue at a time

&nb= sp; = Bring up issues in the “here and now” (as soon as possible)

&nb= sp; = Don’t engage in “sandbagging” or ambushes

&nb= sp; = Express anger by “owning” your emotions

&nb= sp; = Use “” statements when disclosing feelings

&nb= sp; = Acknowledges good points made by your opponent

Use effective listening skills

Avoid mental counter-arguing—listen carefully

Use paraphra= sing to demonstrate you understand the other’s position<= /p>

Use percepti= on checking to clarify the other’s position

Avoid verbal aggression

&nb= sp; = Avoid insults, put-downs, ultimatums, threats

&nb= sp; = Avoid passive-aggressive behavior

&nb= sp; = Your goal should not be to damage the other person’s self esteem.

Tests of Evidence (chapter 6)=

evaluating information on websites, pp. 101-102

&= nbsp; domain names or suffixes

&= nbsp; recency and accuracy<= /o:p>

scholarly journal articles as the gold standard = for public policy controversies

controlled clinical trials as the gold standard f= or medical controversies p. 117

tests of scientific evidence pp. 118-120

&= nbsp; generalizability, control, replication

suppressed evidence

misinterpreting the evidence<= /p>

misleading evidence

facts, p. 110

facts versus inferences

opinions pp. 121-123

source qualifications, p. 111

accuracy, p. 111

originality, p. 112

recency, p. 112=

&= nbsp; Web sources: recency often trades off with accuracy=

&= nbsp; more important for factual claims than value claims

consistency

&= nbsp; internal consistency: is the evidence consistent within itself?

&= nbsp; external consistency: is the evidence contradicted by = other, outside evidence?

correct interpretation: does the evidence real= ly prove the claim?

statistics, pp. 112-115

&= nbsp; source reliability, p. 114

&= nbsp; statistical accuracy, p. 114

&= nbsp; comparable units, p. 114

conclusionary evidence: op= inions without any underlying rationale

artifacts, p. 115

scientific evidence, p. 118-120=

opinion evidence, p. 121-123=

premises and tests of premises, pp. 116-117

tests of scientific evidence, pp. 118-120

tests of statistics

&= nbsp; comparing non-comparable units, (apples versus oranges= ) p. 114

&= nbsp; bias in gathering and reporting statistics, p. 114

&= nbsp;

Refutation and Rebuttal (no textbook chapter)

burden of rebuttal or burden of clash<= o:p>

listening skills<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; using active listening

&= nbsp; avoiding selective listening

demonstrating respect and tolerance

strategies for refutati= on

&= nbsp; demonstrate your opponent hasn’t met her/his bur= den of proof

dispute the relevanc= e of the claim (“that’s not the issue,” “you’re as= king the wrong question”)

&= nbsp; apply tests of evidence (recency<= /span>, credibility, suppressed evidence, etc.)

&= nbsp; offer counter-evidence

&= nbsp; identify fallacies in your opponent’s reasoning<= o:p>

&= nbsp; offer counter-reasoning of your own (“ think a b= etter analogy is…”

&= nbsp; point out inconsistencies or contradictions in your opponent’s arguments

employ the “reductio ad absurdum” strategy (taking an opponent’s argument to its log= ical conclusion)

employ the strategy if “turning = the tables” on your opponent (what your opponent claims is a bad thing is really a good thing)

use a two-side refutational approach (acknowledge opposing arguments, then refute them)

fight fire with fire (if your opponent uses sign reasoning, counter with a negati= ve sign, if your opponent offers an analogy, counter with a better analogy)

avoid “straw person” arguments (beating up on weaker, unimportant issues)

Types of Reasoning (Chapter 7)=

Causal reasoning

&= nbsp; definition of causal inference

&= nbsp; cause (antecedent), effect (consequent)

&= nbsp; cause-effect relationships must be inferred, not direc= tly observed

&= nbsp; a cause cannot precede its effect

Types of causal inferences

&= nbsp; partial or contributory cause

&= nbsp; necessary cause

&= nbsp; sufficient cause

&= nbsp; sole cause (necessary and sufficient)

effect to cause reasoning (a form of sign reasoning)

reciprocal<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","= sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'> causation

&= nbsp; causal chain or multi-step causation (domino effect)

Errors in causal reasoning

&= nbsp; post hoc ergo propter hoc (“post hoc” fall= acy)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; = confusing coincidence with causation=

&= nbsp; confusing correlation with causation=

&= nbsp; alternative causation

&= nbsp; oversimplification or reductionism

&= nbsp; associations in advertising

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; = equating products with positive images or lifestyles

Tests of Causal reasoning

&= nbsp; Is the cause necessary to produce the effect? (must= the cause be present?)

&= nbsp; Is the cause sufficient to produce the effect? (= capable of producing the effect?)

&= nbsp; Are there cumulative or contributory causes?

&= nbsp; Are there alternative causal explanations?

&= nbsp; Are there countervailing causes? (other factors that explain the effect)

Reasoning by Analogy

definition<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","= sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'> of analogy

includes arguments ba= sed on similarity, comparison, precedent

analogies in real-life spheres of argument; politics, law, religion, economics, etc.

Types of analogies

literal versus figur= ative analogies

Tests of analogies

&= nbsp; Are things being compared in their essential, relevant respects?

structural versus surfa= ce features of analogies

Are important dissimilarities being ignored?

Parallel Case=

not included on the exam.

Authority

&= nbsp; not included on the exam

Sign reasoning

&= nbsp; definition of sign reasoning

&= nbsp; signs signify what, but not why

&= nbsp; one thing as a predictor or reliable indicator of anot= her

material goods as sta= tus symbols, economic indicators, political actions as signifiers, physiologica= l symptoms in medicine, circumstantial evidence in law

examples of faulty si= gn reasoning

cumulative effect of si= gns (additive inferential power)

Types of Sign Reasoning

fallible versus infal= lible signs

Tests of sign reasoning

&= nbsp; How reliable or consistent is the sign?

&= nbsp; Is the sign fallible?

&= nbsp; Is the sign ambiguous (could it signify something else?)

&= nbsp; Are there a sufficient number of signs?

&= nbsp; Are there negative or contradictory signs?

Generalization and Example

&= nbsp; definition of generalization

necessity of forming o= f generalizations

&= nbsp; fallibility of generalizations

&= nbsp; false stereotypes as generalizations=

Types of generalizations

&= nbsp; universal generalizations

statistical generalizati= ons

contingent generalizati= ons

inductive generalizati= on (reasoning from particular cases, examples, or a sample to form a general r= ule)

deductive generalizati= on (reasoning from a general rule or average to a particular case)<= /span>

Tests of generalizations

&= nbsp; How valid or reliable is the general rule?

&= nbsp; Is the sample from which the generalization is drawn sufficient?

&= nbsp; Are there exceptions to the general rule?

&= nbsp; Even if the generalization is true, in general, does it apply to this specific c= ase?

Reasoning by Example

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> varieties and types of examples

watch out for hand-picked examples

&= nbsp; testimonials as examples

&= nbsp; anecdotal evidence

&= nbsp; controlled, double-blind studies are superior to examp= les

Tests of examples

I= s the example relevant or germane?

How typical or representative is the example? (no “cherry picking”)

Do the examples cover a critical period of time?

Are there sufficient examples to prove the case? (no isolated cases)

Are there any negative or contradictory examples?