Comm 131 CSULB Exam 2 Fall 2023 with complete solution

Comm 131 CSULB Exam 2 Fall 2023 with complete solution what does CRAAP test stand for? Currency Relevance Authority Accuracy Purpose Currency (CRAAP) the timeliness of the information Relevance (CRAAP) the importance of the information for your needs Authority (CRAAP) source of information Accuracy (CRAAP) the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content Purpose (CRAAP) The reason the information exists Questions of Fact is that true? issues of.. existence scope casualty (cause and effect) Questions of Value Is this good or bad? what is considered appropriate, ethical, or moral (any argument dealing with one of these three is an argument of value) Questions or Policy What are we going to do? what should we do? IT IS POLICY IF USES THE WORD "SHOULD"! what action be taken to resolve? Contains both value and fact natural argument is.. episodic - not concluded in one session Structural Approach to analyzing argument applying pre-existing structure to arguments -Problem is does not measure quality of evidence (only shows if arg. contains the components) -Does not represent actual argumentation Critical Approach to analyzing argument rhetorical analysis of power dynamics/ideology behind arguments -arguments that don't solve problems Descriptive Approach to analyzing arguments describe a topic common concern to better understand argument -useful for identify evidence and argument types, but cannot solve (only make more aware) Fallacy Error in reasoning (a defect that weakens the argument) Changes in Language Intentional changes in the meaning of language within an argument Example anyone who attempts to violate law should be punished, even if not successful People who fly are attempting to violate law of gravity People who fly should be punished Changes in Definition Choosing biased definition of words that usually do not fit the context Example Our company should not hire anyone who uses drugs David takes aspirin Should not hire david Missing the Point The premises of an argument do support a conclusion - but not the particular conclusion that the arguer actually draws Example The seriousness of punishment should match the crime Punishment for drunk driving may be a fine, but it can kill people So death penalty should be punishment Irrelevant conclusion based off of prior statements Hasty Generalization speaker jumps to a general conclusion on basis of insufficient evidence ex. my brother does this so all guys must Post Hoc speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first is the cause -wrong casual reasoning ex. the stock market will rise if the Cubs win because it did so last year (two incidents are purely coincidental) Invalid Analogy