Skip to main content

Post 3 - Chapter 4

Chapter 4
This was an interesting chapter in terms of argumentation, the chapter basically discussed the various ways to make your argument stronger, and how to do so most effectively. More specifically, how to do so using the “Toulmin Model” of communication. In order to have an effective argument, there are many elements of the model a person must take into consideration. The first two parts claims and grounds are the most crucial. The claim is the whole reason for the argument, the issue you want to be resolved. A claim can be about anything such as “you should pursue this major in college”. The second part of the model and arguably the most important part of the model is supporting your claim with “grounds”. Grounds are more or less your sources of information, the facts to back up your original claim. As discussed last chapter, if you’re going into an argument knowing the values/beliefs of whomever is opposing you in the argument, your odds of succeeding in argument are much higher (P. 53-54).

I also want to discuss “Argument from Authority”. This is a very important concept in argumentation because in my opinion it's the easiest way to support your argument. Grounds are mainly made up of evidence, but can also include values and credibility.  If someone of higher power, or with “more knowledge” on the subject, backs up your point, then you yourself look much more logical and knowledgeable on the topic at hand (P. 64). Say for example you are arguing that the Vikings are better than the Packers, you could go to ESPN.com and look at the “NFL Power Rankings” for this week and explain to your friend that all of those “experts” have the Vikings rated higher, so therefore they are the better team. (Of course they could rebuttal back to any point you make because Packers fans aren’t very reasonable about their team and are unlikely to have their values about the team change). (Also this is the only professional team in Green Bay, and only team in the NFL that is owned by the fans, so these fans are more defensive of their franchise).

Comments

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