Skip to main content

Chapter 5

        Analysis is a crucial element in the process of preparation of presenting arguments. Chapter 5 introduces analysis as a mechanism to develop a proposition, identify critical issues, comprehend relevance of issues, and survey claims to gain adherence from decision makers to sort out “an infinite number of related arguments because by one chain of reasoning or another all potential arguments can be related” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 72). The authors of the textbook claim that regardless of your intentions in the scope of an argument, it is vital to analyze the argument systematically before presenting it to decision makers. The text introduces two interconnected components of analysis: creation and critical analysis of a proposition. While the two often intertwine, I find that components of the text’s description of the critical analysis of a proposition are most helpful in understanding arguments more coherently, especially the section where the authors describe what they find to be the critical values applied to arguments.
The text states, “Because different demands will be placed on your case as you move from one context or sphere to another, it makes sense to pay attention to the way each set of decision makers approaches the decision task” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 79),. The text makes a decent point here. Arguments adapt all of the time depending on who is making them, who the decision makers are, and what claims are being made. Identifying generic values is essential in being able to analyze the circumstances surrounding an argument. The authors give five values to help: clarity, significance, relevance, inherency, and consistency. Once these five values are understood an applied to a proposition, the proposition can be fine-tuned to maximize the initial adherence of decision makers.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 9, 2018 at 12:31 PM

    I like you bringing up the point of context in the second paragraph; I often think this is the toughest part of argumentation for me and one that I continue to work on developing. In other classes, we look at someone's personal context as all of their experiences that have led up to this moment, how that has changed their perspectives, and also how they communicate their perspective. Being able to understand the position someone is coming from without placing characteristics on them is one of the most vital parts of argumentation, and reflects being able to do things like asking relevant, consistent questions. I think your analysis of how context effects argumentation is very succinct and applicable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 10, 2018 at 8:31 AM



    I find your post here to be very interesting and informative. I especially think what you bring up about context in the second paragraph rings true. When looking at an argument context is vitally important to understanding that argument and what the position is of the person making it. Context can make one argument mean something very different depending on who is making it, when they are making it, why they are making it etc. I think about all the times I’ve seen someone make an argument dependent on context and know that without the correct context I could have completely mist=understood the argument and thus the person making it. When listening to or analyzing an argument it is important to remember to analyze the context as well as the verbiage because it can alter the meaning just as much.

    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