Question 1

Outside of academic debate competitions, the only place we find argumentation taking place is in state and federal legislative bodies.

Accepted Answer

Argumentation can also take place in other settings such as courtrooms, public forums, and even social media discussions.

Question 2

In the traditional pattern of organization, the advocate argues the three stock issues for policy argumentation in the order in which they are numbered in the text.

Accepted Answer

In the traditional pattern, the three stock issues for policy argumentation are presented in the order of significance, solvency, and inherent barriers. The advocate would typically argue these issues in numerical order.

Question 3

In policy argumentation, a "disparity" is a proposal for some behavioral change.

Accepted Answer

A disparity is not a proposal for behavioral change, but rather refers to an unfair or unequal treatment or distribution of resources.

Question 4

A "disparity" is a problem or difference between the way things exist now and some more ideal future state.

Accepted Answer

A disparity refers to a difference or problem between the current state and an ideal future state.

Question 5

In arguing the "reason for change" in a policy proposition, the advocate must offer argumentation concerning extent, harm, and inherency.

Accepted Answer

These are the three main components of a policy proposition's "reason for change" argument. extent concerns the scope and prevalence of the issue or problem being addressed by the policy; harm refers to the negative consequences or impacts resulting from the problem; and inherency refers to the factors that make the problem persistent or difficult to resolve without policy intervention.

Question 6

The only value claim an advocate of a policy proposition must make is the one which evaluates the workability of her proposed policy.

Accepted Answer

An advocate of a policy proposition must make value claims not only about the workability but also about the desirability and feasibility of the proposed policy. They must consider whether the policy aligns with ethical and moral principles, and whether it can be implemented effectively and fairly.

Question 7

In policy argumentation, part of the advocate's burden of proof is to present the details which explain exactly how the policy change is to occur.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. In order for the advocate to convince their audience to support the policy change, they need to provide specific and clear details about how the policy will be implemented and what specific actions will be taken to achieve the desired outcomes. Without these details, the audience may not understand the practical implications of the policy change and may not be persuaded to support it.

Question 8

In policy argumentation, the advocate's policy proposal may be used as an operational definition of the terms in the proposition.

Accepted Answer

This is true. The operational definition of terms can help clarify the policy proposal and ensure that everyone is on the same page when discussing the issue at hand.

Question 9

"Solvency" refers to the ability of a proposed policy to overcome a disparity.

Accepted Answer

Solvency refers to the ability of an insurance company to meet its financial obligations to policyholders. It is not related to overcoming a disparity.

Question 10

The subsidiary effects of the advocate's proposal constitute a warrant for change, and their absence renders the advocate's case non-prima facie.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The subsidiary effects of the advocate's proposal...

Question 11

A counterproposal must be non-topical and preclude the adoption of the advocate's proposal as well.

Accepted Answer

A counterproposal is meant to provide an alternative solution to the issue presented by the advocate, but it must not be simply a variation of the advocate's proposal. It must also preclude the adoption of the advocate's proposal.

Question 12

A comparative advantage case is a strategy used by the opponent to offer a counterproposal or minor repair to the advocate's reason for change arguments.

Accepted Answer

A comparative advantage case in debate or argumentation is a strategy where the advocate demonstrates that their proposal or solution is superior to the current situation or to alternative proposals, based on specific advantages, rather than offering counterproposals or minor repairs to the opponent's arguments.

Question 13

One option for case development for advocating a policy proposition is to use the "goals-criteria" approach to case development. If you selected this option, you would use techniques of value argumentation to begin by examining what is presently valued by your audience and the goals that have been set to achieve this value.

Accepted Answer

The "goals-criteria" approach to case development involves examining the goals and values of the audience in order to advocate for a policy proposition. Therefore, the statement is true.

Question 14

In arguing against propositions of policy, it is usually wisest for the opponent to argue against both the reason for change and the consequences of change.

Accepted Answer

It is usually more effective for the opponent to argue against both the reason for change and the consequences of change, as this allows them to address multiple aspects of the proposition and weaken the overall argument in favor of change.

Question 15

The advocate has the option of suggesting "minor repairs" that would satisfy the reason for change without making the change stated in the proposition.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The advocate has the option of suggesting...

Question 16

A minor repair must be a natural consequence of that which presently exists, rather than a consequence of a structural or attitudinal change.

Accepted Answer

A minor repair is a small fix that can be made without major alterations. It is meant to solve a specific issue in the existing system without having to reshape the whole structure or mindset.

Question 17

An opponent's "circumvention arguments" in policy argumentation are based on the premise that people resist change.

Accepted Answer

Circumvention arguments argue that people will find ways to avoid or work around a proposed policy change, suggesting that people are resistant to change.

Question 18

If the opponent in policy argumentation offers a minor repair, it must meet the same standards of proof and reasoning as the advocate's policy proposal.

Accepted Answer

When an opponent offers a minor repair as an alternative to the advocate's policy proposal, it must be supported by the same level of evidence, reasoning, and justification in order to be considered a valid alternative option for solving the problem at hand. This is because both the proposal and the alternative solution are essentially competing policy options that require critical analysis and evaluation.

Question 19

One strategy available to the opponent in an argument over a change in policy is to perform a "worst case" analysis and look for harmful consequences, or disadvantages, to the proposed plan of action.

Accepted Answer

This is a legitimate strategy that opponents may use to argue against a change in policy. By examining potential negative consequences, they can attempt to convince decision-makers to not implement the proposed plan of action.

Question 20

As an opponent, you might use the technique of offering a counterproposal when all those involved in argumentation agree that a problem exists and must be solved, but disagree over the best solution.

Accepted Answer

Offering a counterproposal is a technique used in argumentation when parties agree on the problem but are at a disagreement with the solution.

Quiz 11: How Are Propositions of Policy Argued