Skip to main content

Chapter 15

Argumentation in Business is something that can be complicated when defining what success is. According to the textbook there are 3 basic beliefs about what make a business successful. These beliefs are respect the individual, provide the best customer service of any company in the world, and drive for superiority in all things (pg. 242). These are fundamental principles that can provide a business with top success in anything they do. In argumentation of business success there are several indicators of what is making the business succeed or fail. One of these indicators is sign, sign can be used in business to measure a common trend within the consumers or the business profits. Sign is different from cause and effect in the way that the sign may indicate something without contributing to the cause (Pg. 251). For example, if Nike released a new pair of sneakers and the customers are giving great feedback on the product, then that could be a sign of future success. The only issue that can come from this, is that the sign could mislead the company if they only measure their success off of this. It could blind other important factors such as cost/benefit. Now I believe that a sign that a business product is failing isn't necessarily misleading. For example, if Nike received feedback on the sneakers that were negative and customers did not like them, then they are more likely to not release a similar pair. Given the signs of negative feedback, businesses are more likely to release a similar successful product given positive feedback rather than the negative feedback. This way they can predict that in the future their product has signaled success with hopes of future capital gain.

Comments

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