Skip to main content

Five Generic Values That Guide Analysis - Chapter 5

There is a clear distinction between all decision makers and their approaches to a decision task, however there are five generic values that are necessary to decision making that can guide your analysis of each situation. The five values to be applied to a decision making task are the concepts of clarity, significance, relevance, inherency, and consistency.

First, clarity of an argument is crucial because interpretations of arguments vary widely across audiences, and even language is socially based. Through the use of clarity, a joint sense of explanation between the arguer and their audience will be formed, allowing for satisfaction between both parties. Next is the application of significance, which emphasizes the different hierarchies of concern that people have, and where it coincides with the decision maker. This means that people will value different arguments differently and will approach with different concerns. This then leads into relevance or salience, which involves decisions about what issues are most important in an argument and crucial to the presentation. A key aspect of relevance is the decision makers understanding of what is most applicable to the argument, either strengthening or weakening the issue at hand. Following relevance is the concept of inherency, which focuses the most on the obligation of an arguer. The arguer must present a problem that is deeply-rooted in a system, showing the weakness in an existing affair. Lastly, is the idea of consistency and the need for regularity and flow in an argument. This shows how elements must be interrelated with one another and be fluid in their presentation. If an argument is inconsistent, it likely won’t stand in the decision makers mind and they will not agree. 

Now I will provide examples for all of these different concepts in regards to an argument about climate change which the book slightly touches on.
  1. Clarity: Does the language and definitions used convey the argument clearly in a related way? Terms and language must be precise and directed to the argument of climate change, for example anthropogenic, emissions, greenhouse gases, etc.
  2. Significance: Whether climate change is substantial enough to act on, or if it is presented as too big of an issue to combat… is the presentation of climate change compelling enough to act on and initiate change?
  3. Relevance: What issues are most applicable to the topic of climate change? Are increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, water pollution, etc. the most pertinent problems to support climate change? 
  4. Inherency: Is the current status quo enough to enact difference, or is it too weak? An example is that hybrid cars are not enough to deplete climate change and we need more essential actions for change.
  5. Consistency: Is the argument cohesive? Can it be misleading or confusing for the audience? An example of consistency in the climate change debate is the enactment of specific and similar policies that move towards the goal of ending climate change.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 10, 2018 at 8:20 AM

    I think it’s important that these 5 concepts are understood in an argument. If you don’t have a good grasp on these concepts, things would be able to fool us easily. It allows us to determine what is an important issue and the impacts it can have on us. Consistency is one of the most important variable when it comes to telling a story. It can make or break a story someone is telling. I like the examples you give for the 5 concepts because you use the example they provide in the textbook so it is easy to understand. It’s good to remember these concepts when faced with a big decision to make sure that you can provide solid reasons why you should be heard and convince others that what you are saying is important and relevant.

    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