This week's chapter was all about examples. I've always thought that examples were an interesting element of argument because they can be used for a variety of things. They are often used to persuade to agree with you. I've found that the most effective way to use an example to convince someone to see the point you're trying to make is if you make an example that related to them. That way, they are forced to think about it from a personal perspective. This chapter also talks about how credibility can play a large part in examples. The example that the book lists mentions that someone mentioned that a certain list came from NASA. NASA is seen as a credible organization, so the example has more weight when making a case for a certain point. I also think that logos can play a large part in examples. The text mentions statistics as something that are often used in examples. Raw numbers are often thought to be solid examples because they are concrete. However, numbers can be manipulated to show certain things. This is why numbers may seem like a solid example, but are often misleading. The text also goes into detail about why combining multiple forms of evidence is the most common and effective strategy. If you are able to demonstrate why your point is valid through examples, statistics, and testimony, you have a more convincing case than if you were to only use examples. Another point that was mentioned in the text was to only use relevant examples. I think this is an important point to bring up- a few quality examples will have more convincing power than a large number of irrelevant examples.
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...
I think that your ideas about examples are very strong as you elaborated on the different aspects that are incorporated into examples. Like you said, an argument is much more convincing with several different forms of evidence, for example statistics with personal examples. This example of statistics and personal example is very strong because you get the credibility of numerical values while incorporating personable aspects into the evidence for your argument. I would find this very persuasive because they are two completely different forms of evidence that are used in various ways, however merging them would create a special element of evidence for the argument. Although this would be a strong use of evidence, like you said, numbers can be manipulated to show misleading information. Due to the possibility of misconception, anyone using statistical evidence needs to check the credibility of the author, and see if they had incentive to publish a skewed article. Also, when using personal examples, one should always make sure that their evidence is convincing and related to the argument at hand. It is very easy to incorporate personable concepts that don’t relate well to an argument because people hope personability will sway decision makers towards their argument, when in turn an unrelated argument will do the exact opposite. Overall, credibility and relevance are key concepts in using evidence and examples to ensure the best possible results in an argument.
ReplyDeleteI really liked what you said about credibility. It is most definitely true that when the statistic is coming from a more credible source, it makes it much easier for the audience to believe it. But one thing I would like to add is that even if NASA makes the statement, if the statement isn't related to NASA it can still lose its credibility. What I mean by this.. is so many people think that If an organization like NASA or a doctor makes any statistic or argument that it is true; and that is not the case!! Because they can't just make a statistic that has nothing to do with their position. SO for it to be more believable the organization or doctor should make their argument/statistic about something that is in their field still. What I found interesting was when you mentioned how sometimes Statistics can be misleading. But in all honesty, that's why most people use them. Because in some cases if you can convince your audience to agree with your position, unfortunately thats all that matters sometimes. You mention how evidence isn't as believable but I personally don't agree with that. I think Evidence can definitely make an argument stronger. When you provide evidence of such events happening to others it shows a different type of credibility but most importantly, it tugs at the heart strings of people. For example, this occurs a lot of times in speeches. If the person is giving a speech about drunk driving and they mention stories of peoples families having to go through that it can tug at peoples hearts and make them believe this really is a big deal.
ReplyDeleteThe array of various examples that can help prove an argument is parallel to the array of different people and proclivities held across the vast population. Some persons respond to numbers over personal anecdotes and others find emotional appeal to be the most compelling. It is true that a credible and more recently revised source is more reputable than a dated one. However, the oldness of certain texts (such as religious texts and the Constitution) enhance their credibility. That is, the Supreme Court, no matter what the year is, references the Constitution as viable grounds for a claim. It is also true that judges may reference previous decisions that they made, citing a precedent. In those scenarios, the more recent a case was decided, the more likely it is to be relevant to the current proceeding.
ReplyDeleteI concede that using both emotional and logistical appeals (maybe statistics) is the best way to present an argument or strengthen a position. Although statistics can be skewed, it is essential to provide the audience an example that cannot be as subject to subjectivity as story is. It is also the case that readers ought to be wary of where a source is produced. Distinguishing between what is and what isn't considered a primary source is one of the first things they teach us in grade school. As we age we forget this essential first step to argumentation and decision making and are solemnly reminded.
I really liked your point about using examples as way to connect to other person you are trying to persuade. I think that is a really good way to persuade a person by telling a story that may relate to them. But I think explaining the story and relating it to yourself is also very powerful because I personal stories can be very persuasive and effective. This makes me think of a conversation I had with one of my co-workers regarding a the Kavanaugh case. She was trying to analogize the experience a friend of hers experience with flights and how she overcame it. And try to persuade me that Dr. Ford was lying because her if her friend can overcome the fear of flights than she should too. I remember telling him that is not a good analogy and I can never speak for the situation of a sexual assault victim and her fears. The fear maybe the same in both situations but the reasons behind the both are totally different. I think it's really important to understand that examples can be helpful but they have to be the right one leading the same meaning in understanding the argument.
ReplyDelete