Skip to main content

Chapter 12


I chose to reflect on chapter 12 about argumentation in law.  When reading this chapter, I found that it was a culmination of almost everything we have learned this semester.  There is a lot of talk about the burden of proof and how when arguing in court both parties need to have enough evidence to prove that they are innocent/have been wronged.  It is up to the judge and/or jury at that point to decide what the appropriate decision is.  This chapter really focused on a specific case about discriminatory pay.  It was interesting to read about the different perspectives that were taken.  It was a good reminder that, when making an argument, it is incredibly important to be aware of who is going to be most important when making the decision.  In this chapter, I got a sense of the importance to always fight for what is right.  So, while we learned all of these things in about argumentation, remember that you need to make things work for you.  For hundreds of years, people have been manipulating the rules and working around common places to be sure that they got what they wanted.  Today, while the rules are important, use them to do good, and don’t let other people use the same rules to stop you. 

Comments

  1. Hey Kelly!

    I also wrote about Chapter 12, I thought it was a very interesting chapter because like you stated right away it basically incorporated many important terms that we've previously discussed and did a great job of connecting these terms for us! There was a lot of talk about burden of proof , because I think this is an important term for us in the field of argumentation. Burden of proof is known as the "the obligation to prove one's assertion." This is basically defending your point, your views regarding the issue at hand, and that you must supply proof for your audience to just accept and embrace all of your points. Another key term that you mentioned was commonplaces, I feel like this is important to consider because everyone comes from a different place, and has different feelings towards certain issues.

    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

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

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