Skip to main content

Chapter 7


Chapter 7 focused on evidence, and how different types of evidence can be effective forms of support. In my opinion, the most effective form of evidence is personal experience, or evidence that speaks to the relevancy of decision makers’ lives. Using personal experience can be effective in arguments because usually, people don’t care about statistics, or at the very least find them difficult to rationalize. This is even more true if someone’s own personal experience acts as evidence in contrast of statistics. For example, the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety claims that in 2016, 10,497 people died from alcohol related driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic deaths in the United States. This statistic shows that a significant number of deaths result from drunk driving, and the dangers of drunk driving are well communicated across all forms of media. The Department of Motor Vehicles certainly has credibility when it comes it discussing traffic deaths, and so it would stand to reason that people would take adherence to this argument when presented with these statistics and make the decision to not drive drunk. However, I know people in my life who will still make the decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol, on the grounds that they had done it before and everything turned out fine. This is a perfect example of people weighing their own personal experience as more credible than statistics compiled over thousands of traffic deaths. Statistics often aren’t effective because they are impersonal, and a common response a person might have when confronted with statistics is to say, “That won’t happen to me”. Personal experiences, or even hypothetical examples, are the most effective form of evidence to use as support for an argument because decision makers are more likely to grant adherence to argument if they can relate to it.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 22, 2018 at 8:41 AM

    I would agree with what you say about personal experience being the strongest form of evidence. You mentioned over ten thousand people died from alcohol related accidents, seeing the statistics is one thing and one way to warn people about drinking and driving or going in a car with someone under the influence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 24, 2018 at 7:28 AM

    I think that your example definitely shows that personal experience is powerful in the personal sphere, even when it encourages decisions that are likely not the best for the safety of the person or people involved.

    Another example of personal experience related to DUIs is the use of people whose lives have been damaged by it. Often PSAs use personal testimony from people who have caused harm to others by driving under the influence, or people whose lives have been affected by someone who drove under the influence. These advertisements are particularly effective because they demonstrate strong support against the decision to drive while under the influence but they cross over into the personal sphere. Often these ads show the same "it won't happen to me" attitude, but counter it by showing the effect. While these advertisements are meant to demonstrate a point to the public, they also confront arguments that take place in the personal sphere.

    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