Skip to main content

Post 3, Chapter 4


In Chapter 4, the Model of an Argument created  by Stephen Toulmin is introduced in order to analyze arguments and explain their parts and interrelationships (Peterson et al, pg. 53). When evaluating an argument we use the model to identify an argument's claim, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. As defined by the authors, a claim “is the end goal of the argument, and it is the place where arguments begin” (Peterson et al, pg. 53). Then, the grounds follow the claim which support the argument being made by answering questions that provide evidence. However, grounds are usually not enough for decision makers to “grant adherence to the claim” so they are backed up by warrants or a statement that adds value to the claim being made. Additionally, I believe that the rebuttal/reservation of an argument is essential to increasing the strength and influence over decision makers. When making an argument it is important to keep in mind how it can be questioned by the decision makers. If the questions made by the decision makers can be easily answered or at least addressed, then the argument has more value.
Additionally, this chapter also covers the concept of argument by authority which is when a claim is supported because it is presented by a credible individual (Peterson et al, pg. 64). I believe this is extremely relevant in our culture since many individuals support claims without having much backing information, simply because the source is someone famous or relevant. For example, when a famous reality TV stars starts using certain products and advertising them, people will just buy them and believe everything this person is saying. Instead of doing some research which can explain why the products can have positive/negative effects, they simply trust their source and believe in their credibility. Furthermore, I found it interesting how the authors relate definition by authority to the dictionary. As mentioned in the chapter, many of us tend to believe that “the dictionary is the final or only authority on word meanings” (Peterson et al, pg. 67) , but the authors believe the dictionary is actually the worse for this since they cannot be updated fast enough to keep up with the changes that occur. However, dictionary give general guide to strengthen arguments.  

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