COMS 126 Critical Thinking and Everyday Argument Ch 1-3, 9-10, 12, 14 Terms Cal Poly SLO

Lakukan tugas rumah & ujian kamu dengan baik sekarang menggunakan Quizwiz!

Language is imprecise

a characterisitc of language that means that people often use langauge that is not bvery specific when more specific language is available

Langauge is ambiguous

a characterisiti of language that means that there are often multiple possible interpretations of utterances

Langauge creates and separates communities

a characteristic of langague that means that the way langague is used helps people think of themselves as sharing membership in a group and helps them think of others as bieing outside of their group

Language frames experience

a characteristic of langague that means that the way we talk about thinkgs affects the way we think about them and what we expect

Language is figurative

a characteristic of language that means that the way people naturally use language is often not literal

Bypassing

a communication problem that happens when two people think that they are talking about the same think but really are not

Argumentation

a form of communication in whcih at least one person explicitly or implicitly puts forth a claim and provides support for that claim with evidence and reasoning; the process of making and engaging in arguments; the study of the process of making and engaging in arguments

Explanation

a form of communication in whcih statements are presented to clarify ideas and improe understanding rather than to support a claim

Examples

a form of evidence that consists of descriptions of individaul events, objects, persons, or places

Facts

a form of evidence that consists of empirically verifiable descriptions of events, objects, persons, or places

Quarrel

a form of interaction about a conflict, often involving anger, hurt feelings, and teh misuse of argumentation to achieve victory

Arguer as harasser

a less ethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as an inferior to be ridiculed, belittled, and annoyed into agreement or withdrawal

Arguer as seducer

a less ethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as someone to be mainpulated for the benefit of the seducer and tries to win the arguemnt be deceving, witholding information, misusing language, or gaining assent trhough means other than clear, sound argumentation

Opinion

a message that presents an individual's personal belief on a subject

Arguer as lover

a more ethical approach to arguemntation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as someone deserving of respect and attempts to argue in as honest and open a way as possible

Verbal aggressiveness

a negative personality facet exhibited by the inclination to attack the self-concepts of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their positions on particular issues

Statistics

a particular type of factual evidence that consists of quantified descriptions of events, objects, persons, places, or other phenomena

Argumentativeness

a positive personality facet exhibited by the willingness to engage in argumentation when appropriate and to argue in a manner that focuses on issues and reasoning and avoids attacking other people's self-concepts

Jargon

a questionable use fo language that uses language that can only be understood by experts in the field or members of a particular group to hide meaning or intimidate others

Weasel words

a questionable use of langauge htat uses language to make it appear as though more is being claimed than literally is

Asking questions to replace statements

a questionable use of language in whcih an arguer asks questions to get the audience to supply evidenc einstead of providing te evidence for a claim

Puffery

a questionable use of language in which a claim is made to sound more important than it really is

Sloganeering

a questionable use of language that happens when an arguer uses catchphrases to substityte for the content of an argument

Bipolar thinking

a questionable use of language that uses language in a way that leads people to think in either-or dichotomies instead of recognizing a continuum of choices or a range of options

Pathos

a rhetorical appeal that uses emotion to influence others

Logos

a rhetorical appeal that uses reasoning to influence others

Ethos

a rhetorical appeal that uses the personal characteristics of the communicator to inlufence others

Spontaneity

a supportive communication style in whcih communication appears to be a natural, unprepared response to the moment

Problem orientation

a supportive communication style in whcih the communicator focuses attention on mutually determining how to solve a problem rather than controlling anyone's behavior

Equality

a supportive communication style in whcih the communicator shows that he or she believes that others are important and worthy

Description

a supportive communication style in which the communicator describes situations or behaviors and how they affect him or her

Empathy

a supportive communication style in which the communicator exhibits a caring attitude toward the other person

Provisionalism

a supportive communication style in which the communicator operates from the assumption that he or she doesn't know everything, is not always rightm and can gain important information by listenig to others

Source credibility

a test of evidecne that examines whether the source of informaion is trustworthy and has the backgound, knowledge, expertise, and opportunity to be relied upon

Corroboration

a test of evidence that asks if other qualified sources agree with the source of evidence, sometimes referred to as "external consistency"

Source bias

a test of evidence that asks whether the source of evidence has any self-interests that could distort perceptions

Recency

a test of evidence that considers when the eidence was produced and if it was from an appropriate time period for the conclusion being drawn

Internal consistency

a test of evidence that looks for overt or subtle contradictions within the source from whcih the evidence comes

Completeness

a test of evidence that refers to whether the source of evidence, or the evidence as peresnted in an arguemnet, provides enoug information so a critically thnikning person can accpet it

Certainty

a threatening communication behavior that gives the impression that the communicator knows everything and is always right

Control

a threatening communication style in whcih te communicator tells others what to do

Evaluation

a threatening communication style in whcih teh communicator lets the other person know that he or she is being judfed in some way

Neutrality

a threatening communication style in whcih the communicator indicates that he or she doesn't care about the other person

Strategy

a threatening communication style in whcih what is said appears to be rehearsed and manipulative

Superiority

a threatening communication style in which the communicator indicates that he or she is somehow better than others

Empirical study

a well-designed observational researh study about a subject; the fifth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "consensus of expert opinion"

Critical thinking skills

abilities that can e learned to improve critical thinking, including verbal reasoning, arguemtna analysis, thinking as hypothesis testing, using likelihood and ncertainty, and decision-making and problem-solving skills

Judicial notice

accepting assertions as eidence without requiring proof; the second lowest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "common knowledge"

Consensus of studies

agreement among several well-designed observational research studies; the sixth and highest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence

Kant's Moral Imperative

an ethical principle taht can be summarized as "act in a way that would be best if everyone acted taht way"

Arguer as abuser

an unethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as an enemy to be conquered and tries to win the argument through force, intimidation, favrication, monopoly of communication channels, or other unfair advantages

Assertion

an unsupported claim; the lowest (first) level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence

Psychographic analysis

analysis of the audience's thoughts and feelings to try to determine which appeals are likely to influence them

Argument (2)

arguing in the sense of having an argument; an interactino with another person in whcih each person presents, responds to, and defends ideas

Argument (1)

arguing in the sense of making an argument; putting forth a claim, evidence, and reasoning

Testimony

authoritative opionion evidence that interprets or judges events, objects, persons, or places

General critical thinking

critical thinking about subjects with which you are not very familiar, applying the general principles of reasoning and arguemtntation to recognize weak or strong reasoning

Logical critical thinking

critical thinking about subjects with which you are very familiar so that you can recognize inaccuracies and common faulty thinking about that subject

Denotative meanings

dictionary-like meanings that people have for words and phrases

Casual evidence

evidence taht naturally occurs without anyone trying to create it as evidence

Secondary evidence

evidence that comes from a source that is at least one step removed from the actual happening; one who has only secondhand information

Primary evidence

evidence that comes from a source that is closest to the actual happening; the source has firsthand information

Expert evidence

evidence that comes from a source who is experienced and knowledgeable in the subject of the evidence

Lay evidence

evidence that comes from a source who is neither expereinced nor knowledgeable in the area of discussion

Lay opinion

evidence that consists of a reasoned opinion by one outside of his or her area of expertise; the third level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence

Created evidence

evidence that was purposely recored for future use as evidence

Literal examples

examples that are based in reality and are acceptable as evidence in arguments

Hypothetical examples

examples that are made up and should not be used as evidence in arguemnts by are useful to illustreate ideas

Hyperbole

figurative language that uses gross exaggeration to make a point

Idioms

langauge that uses phrases that refer to one thing or event in terms of something unrelated, with no implied comparison between the two

Metaphor

language that characterizes one subject with terms that literally apply to another subject, making an implicit comparison between the two

Concrete language

language that is more specific in what it refers to, so it is easier to tell what is meant

Abstract language

language that is more vague or broad in its meaning, so it is harder to tell what is meant

Canons of rhetoric

lesser arts that make up the greater art of rhetoric, including invetnion, disposition, style, memory, and delivery

Persuasive public speaking

oral communication designed to influence the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of others in a setting where one person talks to many others at once

Symbol

something that a group of language users agrees stands for something else

Reports

statements of fact that are capable of being verified

Inferences

statements tat are conculsions about something based on information that the perosn making the statement knows

Judgments

statements that express a personal opinion, usually explicityly or implicitly evaluating something

I statements

statements that identify ideas as personal opinions or perceptions rather than as undisupted facts or claims needing support

Evidence

supporting material known or discovered but not created by the advocate

Conclusionary evidence

testimony in whcih only a conclusion is stated and does not provide an indication of how the conlusion was arrived at

Expert opinion

the 4reasoened opinion of one within his or her field of expertise; the fourth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence

Critical thinking

the actice application of principles of reasoning to your own ideas and those of others to make judgments about communication and reasoning, to analyze arguements, to expose underlying assumptions, to achieve better understanding, and to approach the truth

Consensus of lay opinion

the agreement of the reasoned opinoin of many people outside of their fields of expertise; the fourth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "expert opinion"

Consensus of expert opinion

the argreement of several people who are experts in a field; the fifth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "emperical study"

Trustworthiness

the audience's perception that the speaker is honest and unbiased, giing the speaker more credibility

Expertise

the audience's perception that the speaker is knowledgable about a subject, giving the speaker more credibility

Style

the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker decide how to use langague to express ideas in a speech

Disposition

the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker decide the order to present ideas in a speech

Invention

the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker discover the ideas that might be included in a speech and choose those that he or she will actually use

Memory

the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker remember the ideas, order, and language choices planned for the speech

Delivery

the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker use his or her voice and body to effectively deliver a persuasive message

Critical thinking disposition

the inclination to use critical thinking skills when the situation calls for it

Credibility

the perception of the audience that the speaker is someone to be believed

Connotative meanings

the personal, emotional reactions that individauls associate with words and phrases

Symbols are arbitrary

the sounds and shapesthat groups of people agree stand for meanings have no inherent connection to the thinkgs and concepts for which they stand

Rhetoric

the study of means of persuasion; the act of using communication to influence others

Informal logic

the study of reasoning from evidence to conclusions, focusing on eleents of reasoning other than the form of the arguments

Formal logic

the study of the logical form arguments should take, including how preemises should lead to conclusions, assuming the premises are correct

Demographic analysis

the use of categories into which people with similar characteristics can be grouped to try to determine which appeals are likely to influecne an audience

Dyadic argumentation

two people arguing together

Dyad

two people enaged in an activity together

Irony

using language taht says somehting that is literally the opposite of what is meant

Common knowledge

using widely held beliefs as evidence for a claim; the second lowest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "judicial notice"

Threatening communication

verbal and nonverbal messages presented in ways that are likely to be perceived as an ego threat

Supportive communication

verbal and nonverbal messages presented in ways that are unlikely to be perceived as an ego threat


Set pelajaran terkait

Chapter 15 Using Communication Skills As You Enter the Workplace

View Set

Macroeconomics Exam 1 (ECON3070)

View Set

Parallel lines cut by a Transversal

View Set

Chapter 13 Treatment of Psychological Disorders

View Set

PrepU Ch. 65: Assessment of Neurological Function

View Set

NCLEX Practice Questions HURST REVIEW (Fundamentals)

View Set