Skip to main content

Chapter 12

For this week's reading I chose to do my blog post about Chapter 12. I was really interested in the chapter and thought that some of the vocabulary was really important to this argumentation course. I like how they bring up the concept of commonplaces and bring it back around to previous chapters 2 and 4, they do a good job in our book of connecting terms using different scenarios and showing you how they're relevant. Another crucial concept to this chapter is the term narratives. Narratives in argumentation of the law are simply the construction of a story or a case built up from evidence in support of their client. These narratives are carefully framed stories in order to catch their client in the best light possible, the lawyer must also be able to connect elements from their narrative to the case in order for the jury to see that their client is innocent. I also thought the concept of filed in a timely matter was also interesting, in this specific case they discussed how there was a 180 time constraint to file her claim within. I can compare this to the Kavanaugh case because when he was accused of sexual assault by Ford, she took years to report the crimes. This is unfortunate for her in this case because in sexual assault cases the evidence isn't as strong after years and years have gone by, and it's harder to prove guilt of the potential perpetrator.

Comments

  1. AnonymousDecember 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM

    HI Alex! I really enjoyed reading your post this week and like how you discussed terms that were previously brought up in past chapters. I know for myself its also been very helpful that the book provides us with examples that are relevant to the terms discussed. Additionally, I believe it is important to highlight the concept of narratives. As you define, a narratives in argumentation of law is "the construction of a story or a case build up by evidence in support of their client". This term is very interesting to examine because it is extremely relevant in todays world and what happens in the courtroom. Lawyers must be prepared to give a narrative that is strong enough to convince the jury. Witnesses also should work on their narratives to make sure they are including the facts that are relevant to the case and can help support their claims. I believe the narrative is needed almost as much as the evidence, because if there is evidence, but the narrative is poorly executed then the arguments strength is diminished. Lastly, I believe including the Kavanaugh case as an example of timely evidence is appropriate because if she would have come forward earlier her credibility and evidence would have been stronger supports of her claims.

    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

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