In Chapter 11, the authors of the text approach the topic of refutation, which they define as “the term we use to describe the process through which one person or faction (group of people) involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another person or faction (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 156). The authors emphasize that refutation should be a constructive process that seeks to ultimately critique arguments in search for a supreme decision (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson,157). I found that the authors were most helpful in describing how to analyze decision makers in the effort to lay out a framework for refutation. The text is most effective when the authors stress that we must adequately identify decision makers along with their goals in the process of preparing our refutations.
The text first emphasizes the importance of identifying who the decision makers are when we have the opportunity to refute arguments. The authors remark that business meetings often include participants who are decision makers without them even knowing it (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 163). I see this type of scenario often when the executive boards for the student groups I participate in each meet. We often speak about what actions we should take to attract more members and how to make the group more fun, but when the time arrives for us to implement our ideas, nobody is aware of who exactly needs to make the final decision on whether to implement them or not. Furthermore, when I need to refute the argument made for an idea, I’m uncertain of who I need to keep in mind when doing it.
The text also asserts the importance of identifying the goals of decision makers. The authors of the text argue “alternatives can be rejected as a whole rather than criticized point-by-point simply by showing that they fail to address the objective of the decision making” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 163). I often find problematic approaches to situations that I could correct with a multitude of alternative approaches in casual scenarios, but if these approaches fail to fulfill the goals of appropriate decision makers, then they will often be rejected. For example, when my roommate wakes up, he always makes a cup of coffee. When we ran out of coffee at my house last week, I proposed that he drink orange juice or water instead of buying something from Starbucks that day; however, he drank coffee because of its caffeine content, and providing the alternative solutions of drinking orange juice or water would not fulfill his ultimate goal of consuming a caffeinated beverage. I failed to identify his goal of drinking something that would supplement his energy levels, and he did not accept my alternate proposal of drinking something else as a result.
The text first emphasizes the importance of identifying who the decision makers are when we have the opportunity to refute arguments. The authors remark that business meetings often include participants who are decision makers without them even knowing it (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 163). I see this type of scenario often when the executive boards for the student groups I participate in each meet. We often speak about what actions we should take to attract more members and how to make the group more fun, but when the time arrives for us to implement our ideas, nobody is aware of who exactly needs to make the final decision on whether to implement them or not. Furthermore, when I need to refute the argument made for an idea, I’m uncertain of who I need to keep in mind when doing it.
The text also asserts the importance of identifying the goals of decision makers. The authors of the text argue “alternatives can be rejected as a whole rather than criticized point-by-point simply by showing that they fail to address the objective of the decision making” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 163). I often find problematic approaches to situations that I could correct with a multitude of alternative approaches in casual scenarios, but if these approaches fail to fulfill the goals of appropriate decision makers, then they will often be rejected. For example, when my roommate wakes up, he always makes a cup of coffee. When we ran out of coffee at my house last week, I proposed that he drink orange juice or water instead of buying something from Starbucks that day; however, he drank coffee because of its caffeine content, and providing the alternative solutions of drinking orange juice or water would not fulfill his ultimate goal of consuming a caffeinated beverage. I failed to identify his goal of drinking something that would supplement his energy levels, and he did not accept my alternate proposal of drinking something else as a result.
Reference:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.
Comments
Post a Comment