This week, I want to reflect upon the section of the reading which discusses the critical values that one would apply to an argument. It begins by explaining the importance of analyzing how the decision making group is going about making a decision; what they're focused on and what information and presentation they find most valuable. Then, it mentions the "five generic values" that are used in making decisions and goes into detail regarding what they are.
The first value it mentions is clarity. Simply put, this means that your argument should be clear and understandable. However, clarity is based on how you present the information, and you may need to adjust your strategies and language to get the correct interpretation across to the group of decision makers. For example, if I were trying to explain a scientific finding, I would use much different vocabulary if I were explaining it to other scientists vs if I were explaining it to my non-scientist friends.
The next value they explained was significance. In their explanation, significance is how important something is to you or your audience; this may vary, so it's important to be aware of those differences and alter to them. An audience may not be as passionate about a certain topic as the speaker. For example, the issue of sexual assaults may not seem significant to specific audiences in regards to their "hierarchies of concerns."
The third value mentioned was relevance. A speaker must find what is relevant to their audience in relationship to the argument they are trying to make. While some issues may be related, like lack of classroom decorations, increased spending from teachers' own wallets and larger class sizes, the speaker must know if these will be considered relevant to the issue of lack of funding in public schools. A speaker should understand their audience's perception of relevance and cater to it accordingly.
The fourth value mentioned was inherency which means that the issue you are arguing is a permanent and serious problem in a system that doesn't have a simple solution. The speaker must make sure their arguments are seen as inherent, or it may not be taken as seriously. For example, sexual assault needs to be recognized as inherent in our society. Just talking about it or placing a couple perpetrators here and there in jail is not going to solve the problem.
The final value mentioned was consistency. When a speaker is making an argument, it should all line up and be consistent. However, a speaker needs to know how the decision makers are viewing the consistency. For example, if I made an argument that we should stop eating at Wendy's because the food is unhealthy, and someone in my audience points out that I ate at Burger King a week ago, that's an inconsistency that has been pointed out, even though it existed beyond my direct argument in that moment. This would belittle my argument.
The first value it mentions is clarity. Simply put, this means that your argument should be clear and understandable. However, clarity is based on how you present the information, and you may need to adjust your strategies and language to get the correct interpretation across to the group of decision makers. For example, if I were trying to explain a scientific finding, I would use much different vocabulary if I were explaining it to other scientists vs if I were explaining it to my non-scientist friends.
The next value they explained was significance. In their explanation, significance is how important something is to you or your audience; this may vary, so it's important to be aware of those differences and alter to them. An audience may not be as passionate about a certain topic as the speaker. For example, the issue of sexual assaults may not seem significant to specific audiences in regards to their "hierarchies of concerns."
The third value mentioned was relevance. A speaker must find what is relevant to their audience in relationship to the argument they are trying to make. While some issues may be related, like lack of classroom decorations, increased spending from teachers' own wallets and larger class sizes, the speaker must know if these will be considered relevant to the issue of lack of funding in public schools. A speaker should understand their audience's perception of relevance and cater to it accordingly.
The fourth value mentioned was inherency which means that the issue you are arguing is a permanent and serious problem in a system that doesn't have a simple solution. The speaker must make sure their arguments are seen as inherent, or it may not be taken as seriously. For example, sexual assault needs to be recognized as inherent in our society. Just talking about it or placing a couple perpetrators here and there in jail is not going to solve the problem.
The final value mentioned was consistency. When a speaker is making an argument, it should all line up and be consistent. However, a speaker needs to know how the decision makers are viewing the consistency. For example, if I made an argument that we should stop eating at Wendy's because the food is unhealthy, and someone in my audience points out that I ate at Burger King a week ago, that's an inconsistency that has been pointed out, even though it existed beyond my direct argument in that moment. This would belittle my argument.
Comments
Post a Comment