Skip to main content

Chapter 5: Blog 4

Chapter 5 discusses the importance of analysing an argument and how the analysis is made of two parts which include “developing a proposition from a  problem that requires a resolution” and “finding crucial issues, understand their relative importance, and emaxmining the claims to see what must be proven to decision makers” (Peterson et al, pg. 72). Additionally, in order to determine a proposition that could be argued to decision makers, critical analysis can be crucial. As stated by the others, there are six stages to the selection of a proposition including: identifying the question; survey implicated objectives, values , and biases; search for new information; canvas alternate decisions; weigh the costs and risks to alternatives; and then, select a proposition (Peterson et al, pg. 73). Once the proposition is selected three additionally steps must be considered; make plans to implement the proposition, prepare contingency plans, and build a case for the decision (Peterson et al, pg. 75). One method that I found helpful for determining issues was to make a list of the arguments for and against the proposition and then matching them up. From my experience one of the most challenging parts when presenting propositions to decision makers is even knowing what the issues of my argument are. Also, when evaluating issues ranking them of their significance (degrees of involvement and disagreement) among decision makers is important when locating the issues more specifically (Peterson et al, pg. 77).  It is helpful to rank issues since this order indicates “where the greatest emphasis of argument and support must be placed” (Peterson et al, pg. 79).
The decision makers approach to the values of clarity, significance, relevance, inherency, and consistency can be evaluated when analysing a situation. I believe significance is the most relevant value to look at when evaluating the decision makers process and how your claim might be tested by the decision makers. For example, if I am presenting a claim that relates to college students needing more transportation on campus, my audience of decision makers should be college students since this is an issue that might be relevant to the majority of them. If I present this claim to middle-class families that live in the suburbs the impact might be different since this is an issue that is not relevant to them. If a claim has a higher degree of significance to the decision makers, then it is more likely that they will agree and support the argument being made. On the contrary, the authors would disagree with my statement since they believe that inherency puts a higher obligation on an arguer than significance or relevance. Inherency states that there is permanent damage or weakness to something (Peterson et al, pg. 79). I would agree that this is crucial when evaluating the arguments you are presenting to decision makers, but before you can even evaluate inherency you must first establish the relevance to the audience. If the claim being made is irrelevant to the audience you are presenting it to, then the possibility of these individuals even hearing statements that prove inherency are lowered.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 10, 2018 at 8:35 AM

    I think honing in on audience is not a poor idea at all. It is crucial to know the thought landscape of the receivers of the information. And it is certain that a proprosition will land differently depending on the audience. It is not just race/ gender/ age that is taken into consideration but the variety of world views and individual preferences that combine to make a collective energy among the audience. Take a party for instance; most party environments are determined solely by the people themselves. If you have ever been to more than one large gathering in your life, you know that the people who comprise the space have an almost surreal effect on the mood of the space; it is as if there is nothing else- (the window curtain doesn’t have an opinion or a temper. ) In terms of inherency, it is true that if we were to arrive on mars and told to search for things that are edible, our common “inherent” senses would be useless. Inherency seems to be a commonplace fallacy whereby one assumes that their audience shares the same common sense as they posess. I do think, like you said, that maybe even before inherency is considered, relevancy should be. After all a speech about mortgages would be gibberish to a group of pre schoolers.

    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