Summary

These are notes for a CSK exam, covering multiple choice questions, applied skills, and short essay writing. The notes explain argumentation components such as logos, pathos, and ethos.

Full Transcript

CSK: notes for exam PART ONE: Multiple Choice (50/100 points): Requires general knowledge of the terms and definitions and comprehension of argument. Documents to learn are: - terms and definition PART TWO. Applied Skills and Exercises (30/100 points) A. You might be asked to identify a hidd...

CSK: notes for exam PART ONE: Multiple Choice (50/100 points): Requires general knowledge of the terms and definitions and comprehension of argument. Documents to learn are: - terms and definition PART TWO. Applied Skills and Exercises (30/100 points) A. You might be asked to identify a hidden premise. B. You might be asked to determine whether the premises are dependent or independent. C. You could be asked to identify the mode of inference. D. You could be asked to apply the “S-test” and determine whether the argument is strong or weak. E. You could be asked whether a premise is positively or negatively relevant. F. For deductive arguments, you could be asked to identify the type of syllogism (e.g., categorical, hypothetical or disjunctive for a deductive argument); and, in the case of an inductive argument, you might be asked to specify the argument type (i.e., by generalization, by sign, by cause, by authority, by witness, etc). Documents to learn are: - Chapter 3, 4 and 5 from How to Think Critically - Chapter 5 of From Thought to Theme Learn how to evaluate arguments and recognize elements from the text. PART THREE: Short Essay (20/100 points): Requires you to write a short essay of 300 words on a given subject.(example below) To learn are: - Basic comprehension on how to write an essay - contents seen in class Structure of an expository essay Question Aristotle identified logos, pathos and ethos as the rhetorical foundations of argument, and the terms have been with us ever since. Briefly explain what each term means and discuss how they work together to build a convincing argument. Introduction Aristotle’s concept of rhetoric centers on three persuasive strategies: logos, pathos, and ethos. These elements serve as the foundational tools for building a convincing argument, each targeting different aspects of human reasoning and emotion. Body of the text/Arguments Logos refers to the logical appeal of an argument. It involves the use of reason, facts, evidence, and logical structure to persuade the audience. Logos is what makes an argument rational and credible. For instance, using statistics, studies, or well-supported claims helps to convince the audience that the argument is sound and based on verifiable truths. Pathos, on the other hand, appeals to the emotions of the audience. By connecting with the audience on an emotional level, pathos helps to elicit feelings that align with the argument being presented. This could involve evoking feelings of empathy, anger, joy, or fear, depending on the message. For example, a charity advertisement that shows suffering children aims to evoke a sense of compassion and urgency, motivating people to donate. Ethos concerns the credibility and trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos establishes the author’s character and authority, influencing how the audience perceives the argument. If the audience trusts the speaker or writer, they are more likely to accept the argument. A doctor giving health advice, for instance, draws on their professional qualifications to enhance their ethos and lend credibility to their claims. Conclusion Together, logos, pathos, and ethos form a powerful trio that enhances the effectiveness of an argument. Logos provides the rational foundation, pathos engages the audience emotionally, and ethos ensures the speaker’s credibility. A convincing argument balances all three elements—appealing to reason, emotion, and trust—in order to persuade and influence the audience comprehensively. Without one of these elements, the argument may fall short, either appearing cold and unfeeling, weak and unsubstantiated, or lacking in authority. Thesis statement Topic sentence Structure of an argumentative essay question Should one try to enter into an argument without any preconceived assumptions? Is that even possible? Briefly explain the role of assumptions in argument. How should we deal with the existence of assumptions in the context of scientific argument? Why should we always try to make our assumptions specific in the context of scientific argument? In what sense can assumptions be problematic? Explain. Introduction Entering into an argument without any preconceived assumptions is difficult and, in many cases, impractical. Assumptions are essential in reasoning and argumentation, acting as starting points that shape conclusions. While it may be ideal to approach an argument with an open mind, completely eliminating assumptions is unrealistic, especially in scientific discourse. In science, assumptions guide hypotheses, test theories, and draw conclusions. However, managing and making these assumptions explicit is crucial for the integrity of the argument. Body of the text/arguments Supporting claim 1 Assumptions in argument are underlying premises that shape reasoning. For example, when discussing the effects of a new drug, scientists may assume the study group represents the larger population, which influences how results are generalized. While assumptions are inevitable, it is essential to acknowledge and clarify them. Ignoring assumptions can lead to misinterpretations or biases that undermine validity. Supporting claim 2 In scientific argument, assumptions must be made explicit. Assumptions directly impact the validity of findings, and leaving them implicit can lead to faulty conclusions. For instance, if a climate model assumes constant greenhouse gas levels without considering future changes, its predictions could be invalid. By clearly identifying assumptions, scientists allow for rigorous testing and peer review, making the process more transparent. Counter Argument Assumptions can be problematic when they are unexamined or based on unverified beliefs. Assuming variables are constant when they are dynamic can lead to flawed conclusions, and biases can skew results. Unchallenged assumptions may blind researchers to alternative explanations or contradicting evidence. Conclusion In conclusion, while it is difficult to enter an argument without preconceived assumptions, making them explicit and scrutinizing them is essential. Assumptions guide reasoning, but when unexamined, they can lead to errors. The key in scientific argument is not eliminating assumptions but making them specific and transparent to ensure reliability and precision. Problematic Thesis statement Topic sentence Terms and definitions 1. Terms Related to Literary Devices and Patterns of Development Analogy: A comparison between two things for the purpose of explanation or clarification, often highlighting similarities between concepts to explain a complex idea in simpler terms. Analysis: The process of examining and breaking down information into smaller components to understand its structure, meaning, or purpose. Spatial organization: A method of arranging content or ideas based on physical location or layout, such as describing a place from top to bottom or left to right. Chronological organization: The arrangement of events or ideas in the order of time, from the earliest to the most recent. Structural organization: The arrangement of ideas or content based on the way they are logically or physically structured, such as sections, paragraphs, or segments. Process analysis: The breakdown of a procedure or action into steps to explain how something works or how to achieve a particular result. Definition: The explanation of the meaning of a word, concept, or idea, typically providing clear and specific boundaries. Comparison and Contrast: A method of examining two or more items, focusing on their similarities (comparison) and differences (contrast). Cause and Effect: A logical framework that explains how one event leads to another, often highlighting the relationship between an action (cause) and its result (effect). General to Specific: A method of writing or organizing ideas that starts with broad concepts or general statements and narrows down to particular details or examples. Specific to General: The reverse of "General to Specific," this approach begins with particular facts or details and expands to broader concepts or conclusions. Abstract to Concrete: A method of organizing ideas that begins with abstract, general concepts and then moves to tangible, specific examples or details. Concrete to Abstract: The reverse of "Abstract to Concrete," where the writing or thinking starts with tangible examples or facts and builds up to broader, more theoretical ideas. Problem-Solution: A format of argument or writing that presents a problem and follows with one or more solutions to address that problem. Countering the opposition: A rhetorical strategy where an argument is made against an opposing view or argument, often to strengthen one's own position. Question-Answer: A structure where a question is posed, and then a response or explanation is given, often used for clarification or discussion. Classification: The process of grouping things into categories based on shared characteristics or criteria. Description: A method of writing that focuses on providing detailed information about an object, scene, person, or concept to create a vivid image in the reader's mind. Narration: The process of telling a story or recounting events in a specific sequence, often focusing on characters, settings, and action. Illustration: The use of examples or visuals to clarify or support a point or argument, making an abstract idea more understandable. Parallelism: The use of similar structures in a series of phrases, sentences, or clauses to create rhythm, balance, and clarity. Repetition of key terms: A rhetorical device where important words or phrases are repeated for emphasis and to ensure the audience understands the central theme. Shift in perspective, person or tone: A change in the point of view, narrative voice, or emotional tone within a piece of writing, often to convey a change in focus or to introduce new insights. Climactic organization: A structure where ideas or events are arranged in increasing order of importance or intensity, often leading to a peak or climax. Anecdote: A brief, personal story or account of a real event, often used to illustrate a point or add human interest. Irony: A contrast between expectations and reality, where something happens that is the opposite of what one might anticipate. Aporia: A rhetorical device used to express doubt or uncertainty about a particular idea or argument, often posing a question to the audience that suggests conflicting viewpoints. Tonal Ambiguity: The presence of multiple interpretations of the tone or attitude of a piece of writing, where the emotional or stylistic tone may be unclear or open to different readings. 2. Terms related to Argument and Argument Evaluation Argument: A statement or series of statements intended to convince someone of a particular point of view, typically involving premises and a conclusion. Premise: A statement that provides support or evidence for the conclusion in an argument. Premise indicators: Words or phrases used to signal that a premise is being presented in an argument, such as "because," "since," "for," and "given that." Conclusion: The statement in an argument that is supported by the premises, representing the point the argument seeks to prove. Inference: The mental process of drawing a conclusion based on the premises of an argument. Inference indicators: Words or phrases that signal a conclusion, such as "therefore," "thus," "so," and "hence." Inductive argument: An argument where the premises provide probable support for the conclusion, but do not guarantee it. Argument by authority: An argument that relies on the testimony or opinion of an expert or authority in a particular field. Argument by witness: An argument that depends on the testimony of a witness who has firsthand experience or knowledge of a particular event or subject. Argument by generalization: A type of inductive argument where a conclusion is drawn about a whole group based on observations of some members of that group. Argument by cause: An argument that asserts a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or phenomena. Argument by sign: An argument that uses a sign (something that indicates the presence or occurrence of something else) as evidence to support a conclusion. Probability: A measure of the likelihood that a statement or event is true or will occur, often used in inductive reasoning. Acceptability: The degree to which a premise or claim is reasonable or believable. Consistency: The quality of being free from contradictions, where a set of premises or claims do not contradict one another. Repeatability: The extent to which an experiment or study can be conducted again with the same results, often a factor in determining scientific reliability. Falsifiability: The characteristic of a statement or hypothesis that allows it to be proven false by evidence or observation. Corrigibility: The ability of a belief or theory to be corrected or revised when new evidence or better reasoning is presented. Science as a “self-correcting” way of knowing: The idea that scientific knowledge evolves and improves over time through the discovery of errors and corrections. Sufficiency: The extent to which the premises of an argument provide enough support to establish the truth of the conclusion. Generalizability: The degree to which the conclusions drawn from a sample can be applied to a larger population or different situations. Representativeness: The extent to which a sample or example accurately reflects the characteristics of the larger group or population it is intended to represent. Representative sample: A sample that accurately reflects the characteristics of the population from which it is drawn. Deductive argument: An argument in which the conclusion is guaranteed by the premises, assuming the premises are true. Syllogism: A form of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises followed by a conclusion, where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Categorical Syllogism: A type of syllogism where the premises and conclusion involve categorical statements (e.g., "All A are B," "No A are B"). Hypothetical Syllogism: A syllogism where the premises involve conditional ("if-then") statements, and the conclusion follows logically from them. Disjunctive Syllogism: A syllogism that involves a disjunction (either/or statement) in one premise, and the conclusion follows by eliminating one possibility. Validity: The property of an argument where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Valid argument: An argument where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Argument by analogy: A type of argument where a conclusion is drawn based on a comparison between two similar things or situations. Abduction: A form of reasoning that involves drawing the most likely or best explanation from available evidence. Intuition: The ability to understand something instinctively without the need for conscious reasoning. Rational persuasion: The use of logical reasoning and evidence to influence others’ beliefs or behaviors. Statement: A declarative sentence that is either true or false. Premise indicator: Words or phrases that signal a premise, such as "because," "since," and "for." Conclusion indicator: Words or phrases that signal the conclusion of an argument, such as "therefore," "thus," and "hence." Rhetorical question: A question asked for effect, where no answer is expected, often used to make a point. Rhetoric: The art of using language effectively and persuasively, often aimed at influencing the audience. Logos: A rhetorical appeal to logic, reasoning, and evidence. Pathos: A rhetorical appeal to emotion, aimed at affecting the audience's feelings. Ethos: A rhetorical appeal to the speaker's credibility and character, establishing trust with the audience. Rhetorical situation: The context in which communication occurs, including the purpose, audience, and setting. Evidence: Information or data used to support an argument or claim. Fact: A statement that can be proven true or false based on empirical evidence. Reason (in the sense of a premise): A statement or justification used to support a claim or argument. S-Test: A test of the acceptability, sufficiency, and relevance of premises in an argument. Satisfactory (acceptable) premise: A premise that is reasonable and credible within the context of the argument. Supportive (relevant) premise: A premise that is directly related to and supports the conclusion being drawn. Sufficient (adequate) premises: Premises that, when taken together, provide enough support for the conclusion. Enthymeme: An argument in which one of the premises or the conclusion is implied rather than explicitly stated. Missing premise: A premise that is implied but not directly stated in an argument. Concealed (or “hidden”) premise: A premise that is not overtly stated but is assumed or implied in the argument. Independent premise: A premise that supports the conclusion on its own, without needing to rely on other premises. Dependent premise: A premise that only supports the conclusion when combined with another premise. Satisfactory premise: A premise that is acceptable and contributes effectively to the argument. Relevant premise: A premise that directly relates to the argument and helps support the conclusion. Positively relevant premise: A premise that supports the conclusion in a way that strengthens the argument. Negatively relevant premise: A premise that weakens or undermines the argument by offering contrary evidence or reasoning. Irrelevant premise: A premise that does not contribute to or support the conclusion in any meaningful way. Missing conclusion: A situation where the conclusion of an argument is implied but not explicitly stated. Explanation: A statement or series of statements that clarify how or why something happens, often providing causal or contextual information. Argument as artifact: An argument considered as a finished product or object that can be analyzed for its structure and content. Argument as process: An argument viewed as a dynamic process of reasoning, persuasion, and dialogue. Simple argument: An argument that consists of a single set of premises leading to a single conclusion. Sub-argument: A smaller argument within a larger argument, typically used to support one of the premises or the main conclusion. Illative core of an argument: The essential reasoning or logic that forms the heart of the argument, connecting premises to conclusion. Dialectical tier of an argument: The layer of argument that involves discussion, counter arguments, and responses, often used in dialogue or debate. Counter example: An example used to disprove a generalization or claim by showing an exception. Absurd example: An example that exaggerates or distorts the argument to highlight weaknesses or flaws. Counter example (repeated): An example that challenges or contradicts a general claim or argument. Random sample: A sample selected from a population where each individual has an equal chance of being chosen. Target population: The group that a researcher or argument is concerned with or aims to generalize about. Personal Testimony: The account or statement of an individual based on their own experiences, used as evidence in an argument. Common Knowledge: Information that is widely accepted and known by the general public, often used to support an argument without the need for citation. Relevant expert: An expert in a specific field whose opinions or findings are directly relevant to the topic of the argument. Unverifiable premise: A premise that cannot be confirmed or tested by evidence or observation. Unsupported claims: Claims made without sufficient evidence or justification to back them up. “S-test” (repeated): A test for the sufficiency, acceptability, and relevance of premises in an argument. “Principle of charity”: The idea that when interpreting others' arguments, one should aim to present them in the most reasonable and strongest form. “Dialectical obligation”: The responsibility to engage in fair and constructive debate, considering opposing views and responding to them logically. “Explaining the weakness”: The process of identifying and addressing the weaknesses or flaws in one's own argument or the arguments of others. Counter-Examples (repeated): Examples used to challenge or disprove an argument or generalization. “Method of Absurd Examples”: A method of demonstrating the flaws in an argument by using exaggerated or extreme examples. Counter-Argument: An argument made to oppose or contradict another argument. Assumptions: Implicit beliefs or premises that are taken for granted without direct evidence in an argument. Advocate’s strategy: The approach an advocate takes to persuade others in favor of a position, often focusing on evidence, logic, and rhetoric. Skeptic’s strategy: A strategy of questioning, doubting, or challenging the validity of an argument or claim. Impartial adjudicator’s strategy: A strategy where the decision-maker evaluates arguments or positions fairly and without bias, often in a debate or legal context. Affect (linked to “pathos”): The emotional response or feeling that is evoked in an audience, often through rhetorical techniques. Eristic: A style of argument focused on winning rather than reaching truth or understanding, often involving the use of rhetorical tricks or manipulation. 3. Terms associated with logical fallacies Fallacies of satisfactoriness: Errors in reasoning that occur when premises are considered acceptable without sufficient justification or evidence. Fallacies of support: Errors in reasoning that involve inadequate or irrelevant support for a conclusion. Fallacies of sufficiency: Errors in reasoning where the support (premises) is insufficient to justify the conclusion. Fallacies of evasion: Errors in reasoning that avoid addressing the main issue, often by diverting attention elsewhere. Fallacies of oversimplification: Errors that involve reducing complex issues or arguments to overly simplistic explanations, ignoring important details or nuances. Non sequitur: A logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises; the reasoning is disconnected. Circumstantial ad hominem: A type of ad hominem attack that suggests a person's argument is invalid because of their personal circumstances or situation. Ad hominem tu quoque: A fallacy where someone rejects an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument is hypocritical or has engaged in the same behavior they criticize. Abusive ad hominem: A fallacy that attacks the character or motive of the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Affirming the consequent: A logical fallacy where someone assumes that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true (if A, then B; B is true, so A must be true). Amphiboly: A fallacy that occurs when a sentence or phrase is ambiguous, and the ambiguity leads to an illogical or misleading conclusion. Appeal to ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam): A fallacy that argues a claim must be true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa. Appeal to popularity (argument ad populum): A fallacy where something is claimed to be true because it is widely believed or popular. Appeal to force: A fallacy that uses threats, intimidation, or force to persuade someone to accept a conclusion, rather than offering a rational argument. “Begging the question”: A fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises, effectively making the argument circular. Composition fallacy: A fallacy that assumes that what is true for the parts is also true for the whole (e.g., each player on a team is a great athlete, so the team must be great). Division fallacy: A fallacy that assumes what is true of the whole must also be true for the parts (e.g., the team is great, so each player must be great). Denying the antecedent: A fallacy where it is assumed that if the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, the consequent must also be false (if A, then B; not A, so not B). Equivocation: A fallacy that occurs when a word or phrase is used ambiguously in an argument, leading to misleading conclusions. False Dilemma: A fallacy that presents a limited number of options when there may be other viable alternatives (either A or B, with no other possibilities). Two wrongs make a right: A fallacy that justifies an action or behavior by claiming that someone else did something wrong, as if this makes the behavior acceptable. “Whataboutism”: A type of fallacy where someone deflects criticism or an argument by raising an unrelated issue, often to distract from the original problem. “Bothsidesism”: A fallacy that assumes that two opposing viewpoints are always equally valid, often in an attempt to appear neutral, even when one side may be clearly wrong. Guilt by association: A fallacy where someone is judged or criticized based on their association with a particular person, group, or idea, rather than their own actions or beliefs. Improper appeal to authority: A fallacy that relies on the opinion of an authority figure who may not be credible or qualified in the relevant field. Inconsistency: A fallacy that occurs when an argument contains contradictory statements or premises, undermining its overall coherence. “Loaded question”: A fallacy that contains an assumption within the question, forcing the respondent to accept a premise that they may not agree with (e.g., "When did you stop cheating?"). “Hasty generalization”: A fallacy where a conclusion is drawn from a small or unrepresentative sample, leading to an overgeneralized or unsupported claim. “Sweeping generalization”: A fallacy that applies a general rule too broadly, without considering exceptions or specific contexts. Slippery Slope: A fallacy that suggests that one small step will inevitably lead to a chain of undesirable events, without evidence to support such a progression. Post hoc fallacy: A fallacy that assumes causality based on temporal order, where one event is incorrectly assumed to cause another just because it occurred earlier. Oversimplification: A fallacy that involves reducing a complex issue to a simpler form, ignoring important details or alternative explanations. Reductive fallacy: A fallacy where a complex issue is reduced to a single cause or explanation, oversimplifying the matter. “Either/or fallacy” (false dilemma): A fallacy that presents only two options when more possibilities may exist, forcing a choice between them. False analogy: A fallacy where two things are compared based on similarities, but the comparison is flawed because the differences are more significant. “Red herring”: A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant topic or issue to divert attention away from the original argument. Evading the issue: A fallacy where a person avoids addressing the actual issue or argument, often by changing the subject or making irrelevant points. “Straw person/Strawman”: A fallacy where someone's argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack or refute, rather than engaging with the actual argument. Status quo fallacy: A fallacy that assumes that the current state of affairs is preferable or correct simply because it is the existing state. Etymological fallacy: A fallacy that assumes the current meaning of a word should be based on its historical or original meaning. Genetic fallacy: A fallacy that dismisses or supports a claim based on its origin or source, rather than evaluating the claim itself. Ad feminam: A fallacy that attacks a person's argument based on their gender rather than the merits of the argument itself. Reification: A fallacy that treats abstract concepts as if they were concrete, physical entities, or attributes. Vagueness: A fallacy that involves using ambiguous or unclear language, making it difficult to determine the true meaning or intent. “Common cause fallacy” (Correlation vs. causality): A fallacy that assumes a causal relationship between two correlated events, without considering that both may be caused by a third factor. Cherry-picking / “Stacking the cards” (or “stacking the deck”): A fallacy that involves selectively presenting evidence that supports one's position, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts it. Naturalistic fallacy: A fallacy that argues that what is natural or "as it is" is inherently good, right, or morally acceptable. 4. General Terms Related to Writing, Craft and Critical Thinking Essay: A short piece of writing on a particular subject, often presenting an argument or analysis. Genre: A category or type of literature, art, or other forms of communication, defined by shared characteristics or conventions. Exposition: A type of writing or speech intended to explain, describe, or inform the audience about a particular subject. Argumentation: The process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea or proposition, typically used in persuasive writing or speaking. "The writing process": A series of stages involved in producing a piece of writing, including planning, drafting, revising, editing, and finalizing. Recursive/recursivity: Refers to processes that are repeated or loop back on themselves, such as revising drafts in writing, where earlier stages influence later ones. Logic: The study of reasoning, especially in terms of structure, validity, and soundness of arguments. Analysis: The process of breaking down complex material into smaller components to better understand its structure, meaning, or function. Dialectics: The art of dialogue and reasoning, often involving the contradiction of ideas to reach a higher truth or synthesis. Genealogy: A method of historical analysis that traces the development and origins of ideas, practices, or institutions over time. Critical Thinking: The ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information logically and systematically to form reasoned judgments. Ontology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being, existence, or reality. Epistemology: The study of knowledge, including its nature, sources, limitations, and validity. Objectivity: The quality of being impartial, unbiased, and based on observable facts rather than personal feelings or opinions. "Mirror of nature": A metaphor used to describe the idea that human knowledge reflects or mirrors the reality of the world as it truly is. Performativity: The concept that language and actions can perform or enact what they describe (e.g., "I apologize" is an act of apologizing). Denotation: The literal or primary meaning of a word, as opposed to the emotional or associative meaning. Connotation: The secondary, implied, or emotional meaning of a word, in addition to its literal definition. Euphemism: A mild or less direct word or expression used in place of one that may be considered harsh or offensive. Multi-vocality: The presence of multiple voices, perspectives, or interpretations in a given text or conversation. Verbal dispute: A disagreement that arises due to misunderstanding or differing interpretations of words or terms. Warranted assertion: A claim or statement that is justified based on evidence, reasoning, or authority. Non-statement: A communication or expression that does not convey a clear proposition or claim. Brainstorming: A method of generating ideas or solutions by quickly listing all possible thoughts without judgment. "Angle": The perspective or approach taken toward a particular topic or issue in writing or speaking. "The lead" (Zinsser): The opening sentence or paragraph of an essay or article designed to grab the reader's attention and introduce the topic. Audience: The group of people intended to read, listen to, or view a piece of writing or presentation. Entry point: The starting point or angle from which a subject or discussion is introduced or approached. Jargon: Specialized or technical language used by a particular group, often difficult for outsiders to understand. Problem statement: A clear, concise description of an issue or problem that needs to be addressed. Thesis statement: A concise summary of the main point or claim of an essay, research paper, or argument. Topic sentence: The sentence that expresses the main idea of a paragraph and ties the supporting details back to the thesis. Sentence Fragment: A group of words that is punctuated as a sentence but lacks the necessary components (such as a subject or verb) to be grammatically correct. Methodology: The systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied in a field of study, outlining the approach for gathering and analyzing data. Tone : The author's attitude or approach to the subject, conveyed through word choice, style, and structure. Controlling idea : The central concept or argument that governs the structure and focus of an essay or piece of writing. Unity : The quality of an essay or paragraph where all elements work together to support the main idea or thesis. Development : The process of expanding and elaborating on ideas and arguments to build a cohesive and persuasive piece of writing. Coherence (as applied to paragraphs): The logical flow of ideas within a paragraph, ensuring that each sentence connects smoothly to the next and supports the paragraph's main idea. Drafting: The process of writing the initial version of a piece of writing, focusing on getting ideas down on paper without worrying about perfection. Revising: The process of improving and reworking a draft to clarify ideas, improve structure, and enhance coherence. Editing: The process of correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, and other surface-level issues in a piece of writing. Reverse outline: A tool used in the revision process, where a writer outlines their draft to see the structure and flow of their argument. Hypothesis: A proposed explanation or theory that can be tested through research or experimentation. Pronoun reference: The relationship between a pronoun and the noun it refers to, ensuring clarity and agreement in writing. PLAGIARISM: The act of using someone else's work, ideas, or words without proper attribution, presenting them as one's own. Summary: A concise restatement of the main points or ideas of a text in one's own words. Paraphrase: A rewording or restating of a text or passage in one's own words while maintaining the original meaning. Synthesis/synthesizing : The process of combining multiple sources or ideas to create a new understanding or perspective. Interpretation/interpreting : The process of explaining or clarifying the meaning or significance of something, often based on analysis. Rhetoric: The art of persuasion, involving the strategic use of language to influence or convince an audience. Common sense: The ability to make practical, sound judgments based on simple, everyday reasoning. Common knowledge: Information that is widely accepted and known by the general public, without the need for citation. "Curse of Knowledge": A cognitive bias where someone assumes others have the same level of understanding or knowledge that they do, making communication difficult. Logical Contingency: A situation in which a statement or outcome depends on certain conditions or variables, rather than being certain. Point of view: The perspective or vantage point from which a story or argument is presented. Positionality: Acknowledging the social and cultural positions or biases that shape an individual's perspective, research, or interpretation. Prejudice: An unfavorable or biased opinion formed without sufficient knowledge, reasoning, or understanding. Bias: A tendency or inclination to favor one perspective or side over others, often leading to an unfair or unbalanced view. Verbal dispute: A disagreement that arises from differing interpretations or meanings of words or phrases. Hermeneutics: The theory and practice of interpretation, especially concerning texts, language, and culture. Semiotics: The study of signs, symbols, and their meanings in communication. Multi-vocal term : A word or term that has multiple meanings or interpretations, depending on the context. Definiens : The word(s) or phrase used to define another term in a dictionary or definition. Definiendum : The term or concept that is being defined. Reportive definition : A definition that reports or reflects the commonly accepted meaning of a word. Stipulative definition: A definition in which a new or specific meaning is assigned to a word for the purposes of a particular argument or discussion. Definition by example : Defining a term by providing examples that illustrate the concept. Ostensive definition : A definition that points to or demonstrates the meaning of a term through examples or actions. Essential definition: A definition that captures the essential qualities or attributes of a term, distinguishing it from other concepts. Circular definition: A definition that uses the term being defined within the definition itself, leading to an uninformative or tautological explanation. Obscure definition : A definition that is unclear, ambiguous, or difficult to understand. Tautology: A statement that is true by definition, often redundant or uninformative (e.g., "A bachelor is an unmarried man"). Explanation: A statement or account that makes something clear or understandable. Analytical statement: A statement that is true by definition or by the logical structure of the terms involved. Contradictory statement: A statement that asserts two mutually exclusive propositions, making it impossible for both to be true simultaneously. Synthetic statement: A statement whose truth or falsity depends on empirical evidence or observation, not just on the meaning of the terms. Conditional statement: A statement of the form "If A, then B," where B depends on the occurrence of A. Scope: The range or extent of something, often referring to the coverage or applicability of an argument or concept. Conviction: A firmly held belief or opinion. Trope: A figurative or metaphorical use of language, often used to convey meaning in a creative or rhetorical way. Paradigm: A model or pattern of something, often used to represent a worldview or approach. Idiom: A phrase or expression whose meaning is not directly related to the meanings of its individual words. Vagueness: The quality of being imprecise, unclear, or lacking in detail. Ambiguity: The quality of being open to multiple interpretations or meanings. Referential ambiguity: A situation in which it is unclear what a pronoun or term refers to. Grammatical ambiguity: A situation where the structure of a sentence or phrase allows for multiple interpretations. Tonal Ambiguity : Ambiguity that arises from unclear or conflicting emotional tones in a text. Euphemism : (See above) Prejudicial language : Language that unfairly biases or negatively affects a particular group or individual. Qualified statement : A statement that is limited or hedged, often with qualifiers like "sometimes," "may," or "likely." Unqualified statement: A statement made without any limitations or conditions, often definitive. Anecdote: A short, often personal, story used to illustrate a point or idea. Teleology: The philosophical study of the purpose or design behind things, often applied to natural processes. Deontology: An ethical theory that emphasizes duties, rules, and obligations rather than consequences. "Thinking with and against": A method of engaging critically with ideas by both supporting and challenging them to deepen understanding. Interdisciplinarity: The integration of knowledge and methods from different academic disciplines to address complex issues. Transdisciplinarity: Research or practice that transcends individual disciplines, often involving collaboration across different fields to solve real-world problems. Synonym: A word that has the same or nearly the same meaning as another word. Antonym: A word that has the opposite meaning of another word.

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Browser