CHAPTER 4
HOW DO I ANALYZE PROPOSITIONS?
True or False
4-1 Analyzing the immediate cause of interest in a topic can be accomplished by
examining the mass media.
4-2 Analyzing the immediate cause of interest in a topic can be accomplished by
4-3 In a factual proposition, the immediate cause of a controversy is usually some event
that leads to differing interpretations or makes people realize they need to acquire new
knowledge.
4-4 In a value proposition, the immediate cause of a controversy is usually stimulated by
someone demanding that something should be done.
4-5 In a policy proposition, the analysis of the immediate cause of a controversies is
particularly important to developing inherency arguments.
4-6 Whether we are arguing fact, value, or policy, we look for the immediate cause of a
controversy in some recent event, occurrence, or set of circumstances.
4-7 Investigating the contemporary and historical background of your proposition’s
subject provides you with information that helps you find the issues you will argue.
4-8 Because policy argumentation is concerned with change for the future, analyzing the
historical background of the topic is not important.
4-9 Because value propositions focus on what is a salient value judgment at the present
time, an extensive analysis of the historical background of a controversy is inappropriate.
4-10 Finding the immediate cause of a problem and exploring its historical background
4-11 An inference is an earlier attempt to institute a policy such as the one you are
proposing.
4-12 The reason to define key terms in a proposition is to clarify what we mean and how
we want the audience to understand the proposition.
4-14 Defining value-laden terms such as “beneficial,” “harmful,” or “effective” provides
4-15 At a minimum, the advocate of a policy proposition must define the specifics of the
change in belief sought by the proposition.
4-16 A stock issue of factual argumentation asks what information confirms or denies
4-17 A stock issue of factual argumentation is to ask by what criteria is the object of the
4-18 A stock issue of factual argumentation is to ask if there is a proposal to resolve the
reason for change.
4-19 A stock issue for arguing a value proposition asks by what value hierarchy is the
object of the proposition best evaluated.
4-20 The stock issues for a proposition of policy lead to the consideration of one or more
issues of fact or value.
Multiple Choice
4-1 Ultimately, the arguer’s goal in analyzing the proposition is to
(a) determine how many arguments can be advanced.
(b) raise questions about the field in which arguments exist.
(c) suggest strategies for advocating or opposing the proposition.
4-2 In analyzing a proposition, you should always begin by
(a) defining key terms and creating the primary inference.
(b) determining the actual issues in the controversy.
(c) investigating the history of the topic.
(d) locating the immediate cause of concern about the topic.
4-3 In analyzing a proposition, the final thing you should do is
(a) define key terms and create the primary inference.
(b) determine the actual issues in the controversy.
(c) investigate the history of the topic.
(d) locate the immediate cause of concern about the topic.
4-4 Analyzing the immediate cause for concern about a proposition of policy is
important because it can help you find
(a) core values.
(b) inherency.
(c) the need to make a fresh interpretation of existing information.
(d) presumption.
4-5 Investigating the historical background of a topic is valuable because it helps you
(a) find issues to argue.
(b) understand the field in which you are arguing.
(c) discover where presumption lies.
4-6 Lord Elgin’s nose was disfigured because he
(a) picked it as a child.
(b) was punched by a Turkish fireman.
(c) contracted a disease, possibly syphilis.
(d) was struck by one of the metopes which fell while he was collecting them.
4-7 A good reason for considering the historical background of a proposition of fact is
that (a) factual propositions often have elements of value and policy built into them.
(b) it is human nature to keep making the same mistakes.
(c) it provides a frame of reference for developing arguments.
(d) it is always a good idea to learn the history of events.
4-8 You have defined the key terms in your proposition for argumentation and used
these definitions to further interpret the proposition to clarify what you want the
proposition to mean based on these definitions. In argumentation, we call this making
(a) the statement of presumption
(b) the declaration of intent
(c) the primary inference
(d) the hypothesis statement
4-9 Why is it helpful to define terms in propositions?
(a) To narrow the range of possible issues to be argued.
(b) To clarify what we mean.
(c) To establish precisely what the primary inference is.
(d) All of the above
4-10 Once the advocate defines terms, the opponent is
(a) obligated to accept these definitions.
(b) obligated to contest these definitions.
(c) able to choose whether to accept or contest these definitions.
(d) able to begin the process of analysis.
4-11 You should always define __________, such as “desirable,” “beneficial,” or
“disadvantageous” in value argumentation, because these terms are the source of criteria
you will use in making the value judgment.
(a) value-laden terms
(b) value-generating terms
(c) value-neutral terms
(d) value-development terms
4-12 When a proposition of value is phrased in comparative terms, the opponent
(a) is obligated to provide a definition of the value judgment term.
(b) is precluded from providing a definition of the value judgment term.
(c) has the option of accepting the advocate’s definition of the value judgment term.
(d) has the obligation to accept the advocate’s definition of the value judgment term.
4-13 If you want to efficiently set up the basis of what the change is a proposition of
policy should be, you should define terms by
(a) authority.
(b) example.
(c) operation.
(d) synonym.
4-14 There are two stock issues for arguing factual propositions. The first stock issue
asks: “What information confirms or denies the alleged relationship between the subject
and the predicate of the primary inference?” What is the second stock issue?
(a) By what criteria is the alleged factual relationship located in a hierarchy of
acceptable fact?
(b) What techniques of reasoning should be used to demonstrate this relationship?
(c) What are the consequences of accepting this relationship as probably true?
4-15 What are the stock issues in factual argumentation used to accomplish?
(a) Verify the relationship between the subject and the object of the proposition
through appropriate reasoning
(b) Discover proof that is sufficient to confirm the relationship between the subject
and object of the proposition
(c) Argue the probable truth of the relationship between the subject and object of the
proposition
(d) All of the above
4-16 If using the stock issues for factual argumentation, the first stock issue ask you to
(a) meet your research responsibility.
(b) meet your responsibility to reason with your audience.
(c) identify where presumption lies.
4-17 In applying the stock issues for value propositions to develop a prima facie case,
you will use all of the following stock issues EXCEPT which one?
(a) In what value hierarchy is the value of object of the proposition best evaluated?
(b) By what criteria is the value object to be located in this value hierarchy?
(c) What techniques of reasoning should be used to demonstrate this relationship?
(d) Do indicators of effect, extent, and inherency show that the value object meets
4-18 What produces the value hierarchy and criteria used in arguing a given value
proposition?
(a) The identification of the immediate cause of concern.
(b) The investigation of the topic’s historical background.
(c) The way key terms are defined in the proposition.
(d) The application of stock issues of value argumentation.
4-19 In applying the stock issues for policy propositions to develop a prima facie case,
you will use all of the following stock issues EXCEPT which one?
(a) Is there a reason for change in the manner generally suggested by the policy
proposition?
(b) Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change?
(c) Do indicators of effect, extent, and inherency for your policy proposal conform to
your definition of what that policy will be?
(d) What are the consequences of the proposed policy?
4-20 In using the stock issues to analyze a policy proposition to determine the potential
issues he will argue, the opponent
(a) needs to remember he only needs to defeat the advocate on one of the stock
issues in order to prevail.
(b) can develop generic arguments that apply to a number of different
interpretations of a proposition, such as the cost of a proposal.
(c) generate potential issues on both sides of the controversy in order to anticipate
what the advocate might argue.