Skip to main content

Blog Post 6 -- Statistics

Throughout chapter 7, different forms of evidence and support were explained and used in various forms of argumentation. One form of argument that is used across many different areas of communication, science, mathematics, and more is the use of statistics. There are various forms of statistics such as inferential, descriptive, and more, however our book describes it as numerical summaries that provide means for talking about large groups. A very popular form of statistics that applies is the political polling that goes on before elections to get a general sense of what the upcoming elections will be like. Political polls are also a good example because the references they make are clearly intended to emphasize the numbers and percentages of different demographics like state, political party, ethnicity of voters, and much more.

There are several aspects of statistics that also play into the political polls such as raw numbers, central tendencies, probabilities, and trends. In reference to statistics, raw numbers, are used to compare various possibilities and prove the significance of a situation to a decision maker. Next is central tendency, which uses averages to indicate what is the norm and what is either large or small in comparison. Probability is a term that can be used in several different instances, however in regards to statistics it is about an expression of frequency and the likelihood something will actually happen and exceed chance. Lastly is a trend, which is used to compare a situation over time, which can sometimes be insightful for predictability.

These various aspects of statistics in argumentation can once again be directly applied to political polling. After reading a CNN article titled Hey, President Trump, it's not 'angry mobs,' it's 'angry moms', they discuss the various demographics and possible outcomes in regards to women voters in the upcoming elections. According to the polls in this article, they found that 63% of women were voting for the Democratic candidate, and only 33% of women were voting for the Republican candidate. This use of raw numbers compares the two party’s female voting percentages proving that democrats have a strong grip over the female voter population. The article continues to say that this is the biggest percentage of female democrat voters casting ballots in midterm history, showing the change in the typical trend. This idea also plays into central tendency because we want to know how high or low a number is in comparison to the average, and in this case, Democrat female voting numbers are the highest they have been in history. Lastly, the probability was expressed through the likelihood that the Democrats will win the upcoming midterm elections based on the polls that CNN has conducted. As a whole, the use of political polling is very insightful into the general use of statistics in argumentation.

Article Link: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/21/opinions/angry-moms-opinion-obeidallah/index.html

Comments

  1. You did a great job of explaining the different forms of evidence and how they connect to political polls! I think it is very interesting that the majority of women are expected to vote for a Democratic candidate and that it is the highest female vote number in history. I wonder if this has to do with the revelations of current events such as the Brett Kavanaugh accusations and the conversations about sexual assault that have been more prominent. I also wonder how historically accurate these polls are and what the probability is that we see we see very similar numbers to transfer into actual votes next month. I think this would be very interesting data to analyze.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...