Skip to main content

Chapter 7


Chapter 7 focused on evidence, and how different types of evidence can be effective forms of support. In my opinion, the most effective form of evidence is personal experience, or evidence that speaks to the relevancy of decision makers’ lives. Using personal experience can be effective in arguments because usually, people don’t care about statistics, or at the very least find them difficult to rationalize. This is even more true if someone’s own personal experience acts as evidence in contrast of statistics. For example, the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety claims that in 2016, 10,497 people died from alcohol related driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic deaths in the United States. This statistic shows that a significant number of deaths result from drunk driving, and the dangers of drunk driving are well communicated across all forms of media. The Department of Motor Vehicles certainly has credibility when it comes it discussing traffic deaths, and so it would stand to reason that people would take adherence to this argument when presented with these statistics and make the decision to not drive drunk. However, I know people in my life who will still make the decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol, on the grounds that they had done it before and everything turned out fine. This is a perfect example of people weighing their own personal experience as more credible than statistics compiled over thousands of traffic deaths. Statistics often aren’t effective because they are impersonal, and a common response a person might have when confronted with statistics is to say, “That won’t happen to me”. Personal experiences, or even hypothetical examples, are the most effective form of evidence to use as support for an argument because decision makers are more likely to grant adherence to argument if they can relate to it.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 22, 2018 at 8:41 AM

    I would agree with what you say about personal experience being the strongest form of evidence. You mentioned over ten thousand people died from alcohol related accidents, seeing the statistics is one thing and one way to warn people about drinking and driving or going in a car with someone under the influence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nate AndersonOctober 24, 2018 at 7:28 AM

    I think that your example definitely shows that personal experience is powerful in the personal sphere, even when it encourages decisions that are likely not the best for the safety of the person or people involved.

    Another example of personal experience related to DUIs is the use of people whose lives have been damaged by it. Often PSAs use personal testimony from people who have caused harm to others by driving under the influence, or people whose lives have been affected by someone who drove under the influence. These advertisements are particularly effective because they demonstrate strong support against the decision to drive while under the influence but they cross over into the personal sphere. Often these ads show the same "it won't happen to me" attitude, but counter it by showing the effect. While these advertisements are meant to demonstrate a point to the public, they also confront arguments that take place in the personal sphere.

    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

chap 12

The legal world sometimes seems like it's the ideal world. It's a sphere where the good and the bad fight it out and in the end (hopefully) justice, and the good, triumph. However the legal argumentation is not free from subjectivity and story-telling. Though we have discussed earlier in the semester how personal accounts are often seen as not substantial, the account a lawyer tells the jury and the courtroom is also in a way, personal. The defendant and the plaintiff bring their side of the facts. Meaning, although both parties may be discussing and recounting the same event, their different variations of the truth of the event gives the facts of the story meaning and reputability. The "truth of the matter" is not so easy to parse out. And often times, there are multiple truths and hundreds of vantage points. Despite this however, the judges and/or the jury must decide which set of facts composed in which narrative are the most convincing and the most likely to repli...
Post a Comment
Read more