Dr. Gass
HCOM 235
Spring 2009
<= o:p>
T=
est 2
will consist of 50-60 multiple choice questions. The questions will cover material =
from
class lecture and the text since Test 1. The study guide below highlights k=
ey
terms and concepts you will need to know.&=
nbsp;
Much of the material on the test will be drawn from class lecture, a=
nd
much of this material is not in the text.&=
nbsp;
You should access the class lecture material from my website: http://commfaculty.fullerto=
n.edu/rgass
<= o:p>
Y=
ou
should bring a Scantron 882E answer sheet with you to the
exam.
Chapter 2: Argumentative Bur=
dens
and Stock Issues
rational
man, reasonable person standard
presumption, p. 27-30
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; favors the status quo or existing order
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; unknown risks associated with change
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; artificial presumption, p. 27
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; natural presumption, p. 27
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; presumption as a decision rule, p. 28
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; presumption as a communication convention, p. 28
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; presumption as hypothesis testing, p. 28-30
burden
of proof, p. 31-32
who
has the burden of proof?
in everyday arguments, the adv=
ocate
has the burden of proof (the person advancing an argument must provided good
and sufficient reasons
in criminal law, the prosecuti=
on has
the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
in science, the investigator h=
as the
burden of proof (p < .05 level of statistical significance)
burden
of rebuttal (or burden of clash)
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; once a prima facie case is presented, the opponent has=
an
obligation to refute it
difficulty or impossibility of proving a negative
prima
facie case, p. 32-33
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; “at first glance”
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; absent any refutation
field
dependent arguments
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; law: beyond a reasonable doubt standard
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; science: p < .05 standard for statistical significa=
nce
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; journalism: two independent sources justify a story
field
invariant arguments
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; analogy
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; causal reasoning
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; sign reasoning
<= o:p>
Chapter 6: Tests of Evidence=
and
Statistics
definition of evidence, p. 100
evaluating information on websites, pp. 101-102
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; domain names or suffixes
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; recency and accuracy
scholarly
journal articles as the gold standard for public policy controversies
controlled clinical trials as the gold standard for medical controversies p.=
117
tests
of scientific evidence pp. 118-120
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; generalizability, control,
replication
suppressed evidence
misinterpreting the evidence
misleading evidence
facts,
p. 110
facts
versus inferences
opinions
pp. 121-123
examples,
illustrations, pp. 110-111
source
qualifications, p. 111
accuracy,
p. 111
originality, p. 112
recency, p. 112
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; Web
sources: recency often trades off with accuracy=
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; more important for factual claims than value claims
consistency
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; internal consistency: is the evidence consistent within
itself?
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; external consistency: is the evidence contradicted by =
other,
outside evidence?
correct
interpretation: does the evidence really prove the claim?
statistics, pp. 112-115
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; source reliability, p. 114
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; statistical accuracy, p. 114
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; comparable units, p. 114
conclusionary evidence: opinions 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
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; accuracy: are the numbers correct?
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; impressing with statistics
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; unknowable statistics
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; comparing non-comparable units, (apples versus oranges=
) p.
114
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; unrepresentative sample: non-random, too small, nonrepresentative
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; be skeptical of testimonials
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; questionable extrapolation
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; keeping the numbers in perspective
correct interpretation: is an alter=
native
explanation more reasonable?
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; misleading statistics
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; bias in gathering and reporting statistics, p. 114
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; not defining the units to be counted clearly
&nbs=
p; media slanting =
R=
efutation
and Rebuttal burden =
of
rebuttal or burden of clash listening =
skills &nb=
sp; =
using active listening &nb=
sp; =
avoiding selective listening demonstrating=
respect and tolerance strategies
&nb=
sp; =
demonstrate your opponent hasn’t met her/his bur=
den of
proof
dispute the relevance of the claim (“that’s
not the issue,” “you’re asking the wrong question”)=
&nb=
sp; =
apply tests of evidence (recency<=
/span>,
credibility, suppressed evidence, etc.)
&nb=
sp; =
offer counter-evidence
&nb= sp; = identify fallacies in your opponent’s reasoning<= o:p>
&nb=
sp; =
offer counter-reasoning of your own (“ think a b=
etter
analogy is…”
&nb=
sp; =
point out inconsistencies or contradictions in your
opponent’s arguments
employ the “reductio ad
absurdum” strategy (taking an opponent’s argument to its logical
conclusion)
employ the strategy if “turning the tables̶=
1;
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)
f=
ight
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)