Skip to main content

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 of the text examines the various forms of evidence that can be presented in support of an argument. It defines predominantly three kinds: examples, statistics, and testimony. The text defines examples as “undeveloped instances used in an argument by generalization.” Examples are of course things that have really happened. So using them in an argument is a way of confronting someone with a piece of reality they may not be totally accepting of. Statistics are numerical in nature and constitute summaries of examples. Numbers can often be more convincing than mere anecdotes in an argument and can be used to really bolster an argument. Testimony is of course a direct statement taken from another person in support of an argument. Attaching an example to a person can be quite useful in supporting an argument.
I think that these types of evidence are extremely interesting to look at in the context of political debates. Arguments are made in the political area perhaps more than anywhere else, and I think that it is very easy to pick out which type of evidence that is being used in any argument. Examples, statistics, and testimony are all very common and are used very effectively in political discourse to create and support arguments.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 23, 2018 at 3:08 PM

    I think that you did a very good job highlighting the main points of this chapter. I'd like to dive into political debates more in this response. I think that you bring up a really good point; political debates use a lot of argumentation and the most effective ones use a mix of the three sources of evidence that you provided (examples, statistics and testimony). What I have found interesting lately is how often evidence has been disregarded in political debates or other political situations. Statistics and examples of climate change and melting ice have been provided to prove that global warming is real; yet it is being denied by government officials. A variety of seemingly credible testimonies were given against Kavanaugh, yet he still got confirmed. This class has taught us that if we have strong evidence to support our arguments, we are more likely to win, yet society has proven this to be false time and time again lately. Do you think there is a way that these arguments could be better presented? Obviously, the values and worldviews are not aligning with the audience, but why not? I genuinely don't know how to get points across when the three main forms of evidence aren't enough.

    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...
1 comment
Read more

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...
1 comment
Read more