Online Test

 1. Differentiate between probability and possibility.

The word possibly is derived from the Latin word ‘possibilitas’ which means able to be done. Probability also describes something that might occur, the chance that something might happen. Probability thinking is considering the likelihood of something happening from past evidence. When we look into our past to generate certainty for the future, we set ourselves up to fail. The past repeats, and nothing changes. Possibility thinking is considering the likelihood of something happening in the uncertain future. This requires imagination and the willingness to embrace uncertainty. To shift from probability to possibility, all you need is to shift from one word: ‘I can’t’ to ‘I could’. Probability is usually measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases that are possible. The one big difference between the two words is that while possibility is the universal set, probability is the subset. Possibility is surer tpo occur than probability. Another difference is that while a thing that may exist or happen is called as possibility, the occurrence of an event out of all sorts of possibility is called as probability. Probability is a theory where possibility is happening.

2. Explain the types of fallacies.

I. Ad hominem: This trick subtly or overtly distorts a person’s character, destroying their credibility no matter how valid their argument is.

II. Appeal to authority: Traditionally it is called Argumentum ad Verecundiam. People often listen to someone famous or powerful, even to a celebrity who has no connection with what’s being endorsed.

III. Appeal to fear: This trick causes your audience to fear others and seek your protection.

IV. Appeal to pity (or sympathy): This allows manipulators to avoid responsibility for something.

V. Appeal to popular passions: Traditionally called Argumentum ad Populum. This trick implies that the manipulator shares the same views as the audience.

VI. Begging the question: Traditionally called Petitio Principii, this fallacy leans on an argument that may not be true in the first place.

VII. Disinformation: Manipulators know that merely launching a rumor is sometimes enough to discredit a person.

VIII. False dilemma (either/ or): A false dilemma assumes that only two options exist.

IX. False analogy: This trick uses misleading comparison to make the arguer seem right.

X. Faulty statistics: This involves manipulating numbers or quoting statistics from questionable sources to gain the perception of validity.

XI. Hasty generalization: This means rushing to conclusions based on incomplete information.

XII. Ignoring the evidence: Traditionally called apiorism. We often ignore things we don’t want to consider for fear they will produce more work or further confusion.

XIII. Loaded label or definition: Loaded labels or definitions use words that evaluate or have different connotations.

XIV. Non sequitur: It refers to any claim that does not follow from its premises or is supported by irrelevant premises.

XV. Poisoning the well: Arguers poison the well by discrediting on opponent or opposing view in advance.

XVI. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Meaning ‘after this, therefore because of this’. This fallacy happens when a sequential relationship is mistaken for a causal relationship.

XVII. Red herring: A red herring is an emotionally charged issue brought up to divert attention from something the manipulator wants to avoid.

XVIII. Shifting the burden of proof: Manipulators know that having to prove an argument true makes their job more difficult, so they try to shift that burden to their opponent.

XIX. Slippery slope: This implies that the end result of today’s actions could be something terrible.

XX. Spin: Spin doctors use the media to positively represent their own viewpoints and encourage criticism of others.

XXI. Straw man: We take an argument we disagree with and mischaracterize it so it looks week or extreme, thus making our own side appear more reasonable.

3. Describe Benedict Anderson’s concept of a nation.

In the book Anderson theorized the condition that led to the development of nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in the Americans, and famously defined the nation as an imagined community. The nation is imagined, according to Anderson, because it entails a sense of communion or horizontal comradeship between people who often do not know each other or have not even met. Despite their difference, they imagine belonging to the same collectivity, and they attribute to the latter a common history, traits, beliefs, and attitudes. Anderson further defined this imagined community as limited and sovereign: limited because even the largest nations recognize some boundaries and the existence of other nations beyond them, sovereign, because the nation replaced traditional kinship ties as the foundation of the state. The fact that the nation is an imaginary construct does not, however, mean that its political community creates a deep horizontal comradeship, for which countless people have willingly sacrificed themselves.

4. Write a note on hegemony.

Hegemony, is the dominance of one group over another, often supported by legitimating norms and ideas. The term hegemony is often used as shorthand to describe the relatively dominant position of a particular set of ideas and their associated tendency to become commonsensical and intuitive, thereby inhibiting the dissemination or even the articulation of alternative ideas. The associated term hegemon is used to identify the actor, group, class, or state that exercises hegemonic power or that is responsible for the dissemination of hegemonic ideas. Hegemony derives from the Greek term hēgemonia, which was used to describe relations between city-states. Gramsci understood the predominant mode of rule as class rule and was interested in explaining the ways in which concrete institutional forms and material relations of production came to prominence. The supremacy of a class and thus the reproduction of its associated mode of production could be obtained by brute domination or coercion. Yet, Gramsci’s key observation was that in advanced capitalist societies the perpetuation of class rule was achieved through largely consensual means through intellectual and moral leadership. Gramsci’s analysis of hegemony thus involves an analysis of the ways in which such capitalist ideas are disseminated and accepted as commonsensical and normal. A hegemonic class is one that is able to attain the consent of other social forces, and the retention of this consent is an ongoing project. To secure this consent requires a group to understand its own interests in relation to the mode of production, as well as the motivations, aspirations, and interests of other groups. Under capitalism, Gramsci observed the relentless contribution of the institutions of civil society to the shaping of mass cognitions. Through this concept of the national-popular, he also showed how hegemony required the articulation and distribution of popular ideas beyond narrow class interests.