Skip to main content

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 of the text examines the various forms of evidence that can be presented in support of an argument. It defines predominantly three kinds: examples, statistics, and testimony. The text defines examples as “undeveloped instances used in an argument by generalization.” Examples are of course things that have really happened. So using them in an argument is a way of confronting someone with a piece of reality they may not be totally accepting of. Statistics are numerical in nature and constitute summaries of examples. Numbers can often be more convincing than mere anecdotes in an argument and can be used to really bolster an argument. Testimony is of course a direct statement taken from another person in support of an argument. Attaching an example to a person can be quite useful in supporting an argument.
I think that these types of evidence are extremely interesting to look at in the context of political debates. Arguments are made in the political area perhaps more than anywhere else, and I think that it is very easy to pick out which type of evidence that is being used in any argument. Examples, statistics, and testimony are all very common and are used very effectively in political discourse to create and support arguments.

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 23, 2018 at 3:08 PM

    I think that you did a very good job highlighting the main points of this chapter. I'd like to dive into political debates more in this response. I think that you bring up a really good point; political debates use a lot of argumentation and the most effective ones use a mix of the three sources of evidence that you provided (examples, statistics and testimony). What I have found interesting lately is how often evidence has been disregarded in political debates or other political situations. Statistics and examples of climate change and melting ice have been provided to prove that global warming is real; yet it is being denied by government officials. A variety of seemingly credible testimonies were given against Kavanaugh, yet he still got confirmed. This class has taught us that if we have strong evidence to support our arguments, we are more likely to win, yet society has proven this to be false time and time again lately. Do you think there is a way that these arguments could be better presented? Obviously, the values and worldviews are not aligning with the audience, but why not? I genuinely don't know how to get points across when the three main forms of evidence aren't enough.

    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