Argumentation Study Midquiz Guide

Pluralism

Pluralism

The variety of moral/ethical perspectives in contemporary societies

Pluralistic Culture

Society comprised of groups who see the world from diff. perspectives, have diff. religious beliefs, value diff. activities, diff goals

Dialectic

Art of discussion/investigating the truth of opinions

Advocacy

the activity of promoting/opposing an idea in a public setting

Rhetoric

Art of effective/persuasive speaking/writing, especially using figures of speech

Democracy

System of government by the whole population/eligible members, typically through elected representatives

Inquiry

Use arguments as a means of inquiry

Inquiring into relative facts. Arguments are advanced about severity of problem, possible solutions, costs/feasibility of various plans

Persuasion

Present arguments when we want to persuade

Allows peoples views to change/achieve working agreements on issues by making arguments

Justification

Develop arguments to justify our positions on issues

Arguments are advanced simply to clarify/support views, let people know what we are thinking/why

Competitive/Cooperative nature of argumentation

Argumentation is cooperative, rooted in the agreement that it is the preferred means of resolving disagreements

Ethics of argumentation

We should not take advantage of our audience, try not to deceive them. There is a moral responsibility to advance arguments that are sound, provide audience with accurate, up-to-date evidence, info

Toulmin model

Claim

Warrant

Data

Claim

The assertion being advanced, statement advocate believes

Reason

Statement advanced for the purpose of establishing a claim

Argument

Claim advanced with reason/reasons in its support

Case

Series of arguments, all advanced to support same general contention/set of conclusions

Conclusion

Claim that has been reached by process of reasoning

Fact, value

Give a fact. What does it mean? That’s value.

Connective/Warrant

Connectives: reasons that consist of beliefs, values, assumptions, or generalizations that link evidence to a conclusion

Warrant: Broader assumption linking claim and data

Inductive arguments

arguments whose reasons lead to probable conclusions

reasoning first, then thesis

probable conclusion: conclusion thats more or less likely, but not necessary

Deductive arguments

Arguments that lead to necessary conclusions

thesis first, supporting after

Political perspective

ethical perspectives that rely on essential values of a political system for their assessment

Human nature perspective

ethical perspective that develops around essential qualities of human nature

Dialogic perspective

ethical perspective that elevates efforts to preserve the two-sidedness of public discourse

“Dia” = 2, dialogue, diametric, dichotomy

Situational perspective

ethical perspective that identifies ethical considerations/principles inherent to each unique communication setting

minimizes political, human nature, dialogic, religious perspectives, avoids absolute/universal standards

Support

1/3 tests of a reasonable argument, strength/accuracy of arguments evidence

Validity

1/3 tests of reasonable arguments, internal structure that allows for reliable connections between evidence, conclusions between evidence and conclusions in an argument

Linguistic Consistency

1/3 tests of an argument, clarity of arguments language/use of terms in same way throughout argument

Rebuttal v. Refutation

Rebuttal: possible answer/exception to conclusion being drawn. A counter-argument, reasoned answer that addresses specific points made/evidence advanced

Refutation: thoroughly successful response to an argument, clearly demonstrates damaging flaw in original argument. Basically, a knockout

General Tests of Evidence

Credibility: source’s reputation

Recency: requirement that evidence is up to date

Adequacy: whether evidence is sufficient enough to support claim

Internet resources

Reliable internet sources are assembled by credible orginizations/individuals

Sampling, Random Sample

Sampling: Statistically selecting/observing members of given population

Random sample: Sample in which every member of given population had equal chance of being selected for sample

Population

The group from a sample

Representativeness

Accurately reflects presence of particular quality in the entire population

Is it representative of population as a whole?

Generalization

Claims that take their evidence as a sample drawn from a population, advance a conclusion about members of entire population

Variation

Relevant differences among members in a population, degrees to which population varies in ways relevant to generalization

Stratified sample

Sample that adequately reflects various groups that introduce variation in a population

Mean, Median, Mode

Mean: The average

Median: The one in the middle

Mode: Most frequently occurring observation

Lay, expert, biased testimony

Lay: someone who isn’t an expert, a layman

Expert: qualified specialist

Biased testimony: from individuals who stand to gain if what they say is accepted

Argumentative definition

Definition employed strategically to support a particular conclusion

Euphemism

Strategy of definitions, a word to describe something so that it is less objectionable

Labeling

Strategy of definition, characterizing a person/group/idea/institution by introducing a suggestive name/term

Circular definition

Definition that only references itself.

EX: what is an expert? someone who has expertise in their field. What’s expertise? something an expert has

Evaluating definitions

Definitions may be used to:

clarify meaning, suggest conclusions, deflect meaning, facilitate defense, obscure issues

Definitions should not be controversial, should be widely acknowledged BUT argumentative definitions are usually controversial because it assists one side of debate

Paradigm

A worldview, an ideology

Equivocation

Problem of a definition, changing meaning of a key term in course of an argument