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
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
