Skip to main content

Chapter 5 - Blog Post 4


          Chapter five’s explanation of the importance of analyzing arguments is both informative and essential for all students of rhetoric. The authors of the text suggest that “analysis of argument is necessary, no matter at what point you enter the argumentation process” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 72). In other words, a strong student of rhetoric would always analyze all parts of an argument even if the issue is seemingly settled or resolved. I could not agree with the authors more. In today’s digital age, more and more people, average citizens and politicians alike, are turning to social media platforms to advance several arguments. These claims take the form of value, policy, or factual claims. While the normal human tendency is to believe online statements, especially those coming from authority figures, the authors would suggest that careful analysis should still be conducted on these claims in order to prove their worth. While there are many ways that people go about fact-checking claims, the authors state that “analysis should be undertaken systematically and in advance of presenting arguments to decision makers” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 72). In other words, there is an organized and sequential way to analyze arguments and the ultimate goal is to find arguments that can refute the original claim. The authors label the systematic search for these refutations as the “critical analysis to find a proposition” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 72).
            There are six steps in selecting a proposition in which to argue against a claim. The first and most important is to identify the question. Without clearly understanding what the problem with the original argument is, forming a proposition against it is very challenging. For example, if one were to read online that voting for a certain politician is the best decision for a district, one will have to question what qualities about that individual is good for that district. A good question to ask could be, will the candidate help to raise the minimum wage in the state? The next step is to search for new information. Going back to the example, the politician might have said or written statements about her stance on the current minimum wage. She might also have voted on minimum wage legislation in her previous experiences in office. Looking for such information is fundamental in assessing whether that is a good question to ask. Surveying implicated objectives, values, and biases is the next step in the framework. Here, individuals need to consider what they are trying to accomplish (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 74). If the proposition will be used to persuade family members to vote for or against this candidate, one should evaluate whether the minimum wage is truly an issue that one’s family cares about. If it is decided that voting for the candidate is favorable for the district because she will fight to raise the state’s minimum wage, then the next step is to canvass alternative decisions. All possible alternatives need to be considered. Could the politician be bad for the state because of her views on education? Could her stance on stricter gun control laws be more effective in persuading one’s family members to vote for her? A full analysis of the alternatives is also not complete without weighing their costs and risks. This also happens to be the penultimate step in the process. If one intends to convince people to vote for the candidate, could her other stances be detrimental for the district? Weighing the costs and risks allows one to truly consider if the final proposition is the best one. The last and final step is to pick a proposition. The proposition could be: my family members should vote for this candidate because her views on raising the state’s minimum wage is favorable to my family and my hometown.
            As illustrated through the process, by analyzing an original argument that one sees on the internet, one can critically devise a proposition that responds to that argument. Ultimately, this proposition is still an argument that others can raise propositions for or against. Hence, to reiterate the gist of this post, “analysis of argument is necessary, no matter at what point you enter the argumentation process” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 72).

Sources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.

Comments

  1. Nate AndersonOctober 10, 2018 at 8:22 AM

    I think your post is excellent and describes very clearly the process of deriving a proposition for an argument.

    In the context of internet arguments, I'm not sure that people immediately believe arguments. Rather, people are unable to argue against claims they disagree with because they do not have the critical skills outlined in the chapter.

    The internet also holds a massive collection of arguments with little support, but people do not have the time to deconstruct and criticize every argument. From my experience working as a high school debate judge I observed unchallenged claims working in favor of those who spout them. While this goes against my concept of a good argument, I think it does have some effect upon the audience. While the audience may not believe an argument simply because it is unchallenged, they may give it more weight than they normally would.

    Additionally the internet brings a wide range of audiences into a common area of argumentation. What convinces or satisfies the critical values of one audience may be contrary to another. This adds another dimension of difficulty to criticizing online arguments because the audience is often diverse and somewhat anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 10, 2018 at 8:33 AM

    I completely agree with you when you say that analysis is completely necessary regardless of when you enter the argumentation process. It is especially important now with the increasingly polarized political atmosphere we live in. I also really liked when you said that a full analysis of all alternative options needs to be done. People often say "both sides" of the argument, which invents a dichotomy when there if often many more than only 2 options. In addition, I think the natural human tendency to believe online claims that you mentioned may now be in the process of being reversed. Authority figures undermine the authority of news outlets, saying that the news is fake. I think that people are now inclined to listen to things that align with their values, especially older generations. I definitely think people need to truly evaluate arguments that they see and interact with in their daily lives. If people stop doing that, they will only hear what they want to hear.

    ReplyDelete

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

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

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more