Argumentation Final Review

evidence

the support for a claim that the arguer discovers from experience or outside authority

examples

undeveloped instances used in an argument by generalization

illustration

an extended instance that illustrates a general principle

hypothetical example

used where real examples are not available or when the available real examples are far removed from the decision makers’ experience

statistics

numerical summaries of examples

raw numbers

statistical references clearly intended to emphasize significant numbers of examples

central tendencies

statistics that provide an indication of what is nomrla in a larger population

probability

statistical expressions of the frequency with which events occurby pure chance

trend

statistic used to compare a situation over time

testimony of fact

statement from another person to support a claim that includes examples or statistics for grounds of an argument

testimony of opinion

statement from another person to support a claim that includes subjective perception of the issue

sphere dependence

one kind of evidence can be valued in one sphere over another

hearsay evidence

testimony a person might give about a statement made by another person

reluctant evidence

evidence from those who are antagonistic to one’s purpose

negative evidence

the absence of evidence

assertion

using your own authority as grounds for claims

stated values

direct statements of value concepts

implied values

values that are communicated through belief statements

terminal values

values that reflect the ends a person admires

instrumental values

values that reflect the means to attain the ends a person admires

abstract values

concepts that don’t have a definitive representation

concrete values

particular people, groups, institutions, or objects that serve as values

value systems

a set of linked claims

credibility

support for a claim that is developed by decision makers’ perception that the arguer is competent and trustworthy

homophily

when you find someone else to be credible because you perceive them to be similar to you

good will

dimension of credibility characterized by value terms such as open-minded, objective, impartial, kind, friendly, and caring

dynamism

dimension of credibility characterized by value terms such as showmanship, enthusiasm, inspiration, and forcefulness

direct credibility

credibility developed by making direct statements about yourself 

secondary credibility

credibility developed by associating someone else’s credibility with yourself

indirect credibility

credibility developed by the way you develop, support, and argue your claims

reputation

credibility you have with decision makers before you argue

refutation

the process through which one person/faction involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another

framebreaking

helping others break their typical frame of reference in considering decision proposals

momentum

a state of mind regarding critical attention to arguments

fallacy claim

asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant argumentation rule relevant to appropriate decision makers

sophistry

the use of plausible but fallacious reasoning

tu quoque

an argument that responds to a charge by making a countercharge

begging the question

when an answer or definition seems plausible but on closer examination assumes as fact that which is not proved

appeal to authority

assuming a claim is a fact simply because someone with high credibility says it is

appeal to popularity

claiming that something is good because it is popular

post hoc

a faulty causal relationship

ad hominem

when people turn their criticism against a person rather than the person’s ideas

appeal to pity

arguments based on the elicitation of pity

obfuscation

an intent to make communication unclear in order to secure adherence from those who trust in the commitment to clarity

quantity maxim

we presume that our communications say enough to make sense and no more