Skip to main content

Chapter 4


I thought that this chapter discussing structure, logic, and validity of arguments was very relevant to current events going on in today’s news. This chapter discussed what makes up an argument, with those elements, being claims, grounds, and warrants, among other things. One of those concepts is backing. Backing is something that lends support to an argument, whether it be in the form of examples, statistics, testimony, or authority. This concept is especially relevant because of what is currently happening with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for a Supreme Court justice position. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, stating he attempted to rape her 36 years ago. The claim and grounds are very clear, but the backing is what people are using to evaluate the validity of the arguments being presented. Dr. Blasey Ford testified in front of Congress last Thursday, as did Brett Kavanaugh. Both were questioned by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for several hours. Dr. Blasey Ford presented the evidence of a lie detector test to provide additional backing to her claim, as well as her own personal testimony. However, some members of the committee undermined her credibility by questioning the authenticity of the lie detector test. While the committee eventually did vote to confirm Kavanaugh, the testimony implanted doubt in the minds of many, and an FBI investigation will be conducted before having a re-vote. I think this is an excellent real-life example of how backing evidence can have a significant impact on what happens. Going into the hearing, the claims and grounds were already clearly laid out. It is because of the new backing support that was introduced that there will be an investigation, which could definitely alter the outcome of the re-vote.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 3, 2018 at 8:37 AM

    I really enjoyed reading your blog post and the focus that you had on the backing of an argument. I also wrote a blog post with a similar focus and gave examples such as specific data and quotes/testimony. However, I found it interesting that you added authority to your example list for backing. Thinking about it, It would make sense in certain situations that the backing could be in the form of word form a person in a position of power. For example, a company employee might be making a claim that the entire office should have a golf outing with the grounds that it will be a good team building experience. The employee can strengthen that claim by talking with the CEO of the company about the idea. Then, if they agree that it will be a great team building experience, the employee can use their words in the form of backing to their grounds because the CEO has authority over the entire company. Great work!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a 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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more