Skip to main content

Blog Post 6 -- Statistics

Throughout chapter 7, different forms of evidence and support were explained and used in various forms of argumentation. One form of argument that is used across many different areas of communication, science, mathematics, and more is the use of statistics. There are various forms of statistics such as inferential, descriptive, and more, however our book describes it as numerical summaries that provide means for talking about large groups. A very popular form of statistics that applies is the political polling that goes on before elections to get a general sense of what the upcoming elections will be like. Political polls are also a good example because the references they make are clearly intended to emphasize the numbers and percentages of different demographics like state, political party, ethnicity of voters, and much more.

There are several aspects of statistics that also play into the political polls such as raw numbers, central tendencies, probabilities, and trends. In reference to statistics, raw numbers, are used to compare various possibilities and prove the significance of a situation to a decision maker. Next is central tendency, which uses averages to indicate what is the norm and what is either large or small in comparison. Probability is a term that can be used in several different instances, however in regards to statistics it is about an expression of frequency and the likelihood something will actually happen and exceed chance. Lastly is a trend, which is used to compare a situation over time, which can sometimes be insightful for predictability.

These various aspects of statistics in argumentation can once again be directly applied to political polling. After reading a CNN article titled Hey, President Trump, it's not 'angry mobs,' it's 'angry moms', they discuss the various demographics and possible outcomes in regards to women voters in the upcoming elections. According to the polls in this article, they found that 63% of women were voting for the Democratic candidate, and only 33% of women were voting for the Republican candidate. This use of raw numbers compares the two party’s female voting percentages proving that democrats have a strong grip over the female voter population. The article continues to say that this is the biggest percentage of female democrat voters casting ballots in midterm history, showing the change in the typical trend. This idea also plays into central tendency because we want to know how high or low a number is in comparison to the average, and in this case, Democrat female voting numbers are the highest they have been in history. Lastly, the probability was expressed through the likelihood that the Democrats will win the upcoming midterm elections based on the polls that CNN has conducted. As a whole, the use of political polling is very insightful into the general use of statistics in argumentation.

Article Link: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/21/opinions/angry-moms-opinion-obeidallah/index.html

Comments

  1. Denys KariaOctober 24, 2018 at 7:36 AM

    You did a great job of explaining the different forms of evidence and how they connect to political polls! I think it is very interesting that the majority of women are expected to vote for a Democratic candidate and that it is the highest female vote number in history. I wonder if this has to do with the revelations of current events such as the Brett Kavanaugh accusations and the conversations about sexual assault that have been more prominent. I also wonder how historically accurate these polls are and what the probability is that we see we see very similar numbers to transfer into actual votes next month. I think this would be very interesting data to analyze.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more