Chapter 6 discusses the importance of completing preliminary work before presenting arguments to an audience. As mentioned in the chapter the steps that should be done before coming up with an argumental case includes; identifying the purpose, stating the proposition, evaluating presumptions and burden of proof, and deciding what is needed for a prima facie case (Peterson et al, pg. 89). Once these preliminary steps are accomplished, one can move forward in preparing the case while keeping two key responsibilities in mind: having “clear, well-supported, and defensible arguments" and “a convincing vision of the rightness of the cause” (Peterson et al, pg. 89). The authors believe these two responsibilities are extremely important and are not sufficient alone. I believe this idea is extremely important when discussing the topic of argumentation since without it arguments would be poorly executed. When evaluating this claim we can compare how an argument would be executed if the preliminary steps mentioned were not completed and the two primarily responsibilities were not satisfied when preparing the case. For example, if one is unsure of what the purpose of their argument is, then how do they expect to convince an audience. Being prepared is essential when presenting a case and knowing how to correctly state the proposition helps an argument be more persuasive. This can be seen in the courtroom when lawyers present their claims and defense. In order for a lawyer to present strong arguments they must be prepared and they do this by studying their case, thinking about ways their claims can be questioned by the audience, and conducting enough information so there are no surprises or possibilities of losing credibility. Additionally, when preparing their case to present to the jury they must make sure that their arguments are clear and in the right since they do not have unlimited times to state and restate their claims. In other words, every argument made by a lawyer can have an impact on the jury so they must make sure they are all strong arguments which are created with preparation and the right mindset. Furthermore, it is crucial for a lawyer to be able to answer questions clearly and in a confident manner. Lastly, this idea can be related to credibility since taking preliminary steps before presenting a case helps an individual come-off as prepared which adds to their credibility.
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, ...
I agree totally with your statement about being prepared is very essential to presenting a case because confidence shows the other side that what you are saying is well researched and intimidates them because it shows that you may be right in a sense. I also see a lot of lawyers use this method as you stated as well. Do you think these steps were taken into action for the OJ Simpson case? Because it seemed like they messed up a lot during the things I watched which caused him to become a free man. How were they unsuccessful if all lawyers should abide by this model? I do also agree with that the idea does come off super credible because it is a well thought out argument. So you come into the argument prepared for everything.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post because I also pictured case-building from a litigation and courtroom perspective as well. I completely agree that lawyers have to be well-prepared to answer any questions that the other party might advance. However, expanding on the courtroom example, burden of proof also comes to my mind when I think about litigation. The text defines the burden of proof as, “the responsibility to initiate an argument and set out a case sufficient in argumentative strength and breadth to bring the decision makers to doubt their presumptions” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 87). In other words, the party that has the burden of proof has to work against the presumptions of individuals in a sphere. In law, civil and criminal cases have very different burdens of proof. While all defendants are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, a plaintiff in a criminal case has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. However, a plaintiff in a civil case only has to show that a preponderance of the evidence holds the defendant liable for the claims. The fact that civil and criminal cases have different burdens of proof might, in turn, also be based on presumptions that people in America hold. It is usually presumed that criminal cases are much more severe than civil ones because of jail sentences that may result from criminal convictions. Jail sentences remove personal liberties and they may also result in the stripping of other liberties, such as voting rights. Due to the country’s presumption that all people deserve liberty, criminal cases have a heavier burden of proof. Therefore, it is evident that presumptions profoundly affect burdens of proof in different situations.
ReplyDeleteSources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.