COMM 114 Midterm Study Guide

Clarity problems: unclear terms and double-barreled claims (Chapters 5 and 8)

The arguer uses vague, unclear terms: Example: "The American education system is failing." Education system: Does this mean public or private? Primary, secondary, college or post-graduate? Failing: How is success or failure determined? Are test scores low? Do people not have the skills necessary for a productive life?

What is denotation? (CH. 3 & 4)

The content level of the word. Ex. Literal meaning

The argument marketplace (Chapters 1 and 2)

The "marketplace" of ideas = marketplace of competing arguments o Where "sellers" -arguers hawking their worldviews- seek to find "buyers" who will accept their claims o Arguments compete against each other

Define the Narrative Paradigm and each of its two parts.

The Narrative Paradigm is the idea that people are natural storytellers, and that stories are a way for people to communicate. Stories allow for people to form values and beliefs from the tales that they hear. --One part of the paradigm is narrative probability. This focuses on if the story is consistent, and if the story is structured well. --The next part is narrative fidelity. This focuses on whether or not the story makes sense by weighing the events against various aspects of everyday life. A story with fidelity will make sense to the listener, and may appeal to social, economic, or political issues that are relevant to the time of the story.

What is rhetoric acts? (Chapters 5 and 8)

Is a intentional, created, polished attempt to overcome the obstacles in a given situation with a specific audience on a given issue to achieve a particular end. --Ex: Advocacy speech (strategic- Planned)

What are the tests of evidence and how is credibility upheld?

(RRAAC) 1. Recency 2. Relevance 3. Adequacy/ Accuracy 4. Access 5. Consistency

What is syllogism? (CH. 6)

A formal, logical type of reasoning. Consists of... 1. Major premise - states a generalization. Ex. All humans are mortal. 2. Minor premise - relates a specific case or class to a generalization. Ex.Socrates is a human. 3. Conclusion - deduced from two premises. Ex. Socrates is mortal.

Defining evidence, (Chapter 7 )

"Evidence...is the support for a claim that the arguer discovers from experience or outside authority: examples, statistics and testimony." (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson) ▪ "...the defining characteristic of evidence it is accepted by the audience and can be used to support statements that are not accepted." (Inch, Warnick, & Endres) Argument Grounds Grounds: the evidence, support, or foundation of the claim "What are you basing this claim on?" Example Claim: We need to stop minting the penny. ON WHAT GROUNDS?!Grounds: Well, it costs more money to make a penny than its worth.

Value claims versus the audience's values (Chapters 5 and 8)

"Value claims" are not quite the same thing as the audience or arguer's "values" People have values, which influence their positions and shape their perspectives "Dr. Martin Luther King valued freedom above all else" "Often, people prefer price over quality" Value claims are claims about worth or how something should be valued "Diversity makes schools better" "Security takes priority over privacy"

Synonyms for Evidence =

"grounds," "data," "proof," "support," and "verification"

Argument-2 (O'Keefe slide; Hollihan and Baaske textbook) (Chapters 1 and 2)

"having an argument" Types of interactions in which people engage - Refers to the type of interactions in which claims are developed. - Involves disputes or disagreements. - Ex. "Health is a privilege not a right." o Its not possible to have disputes (argument 2) without making claims (argument 1). Disagreements are therefore expressed through argument 1.

Argument-1 (O'Keefe slide; Hollihan and Baaske textbook) (Chapters 1 and 2)

"making an argument." Claims offered by arguers -Refers to the claims and statements that people make. - Doesn't usually involve disputes of disagreements. - Ex. "Access to health care is a right." - Argument-1 considers argument as an object. "Sheila made the argument that the Taylor Swift should have played the lead role in the movie, "Beauty and the Beast."

The claims pyramid

(top) policy (mid) Value Claim (bottom) Fact/definition Claim Policy Claim - The US should accept refugees from war-torn countries Value Claim - Refugees deserve a better life Fact Claim - Many churches are prepared to help refugees with housing, school, and work

Argument as communication (Chapters 1 and 2)

- Argumentation is instrumental communication, e.g., a means to an end. -- 1. Focuses on a goal. Ex. Making a decision --2. The essence of argument involves reason-giving. Ex. Animals feel pain, and they experience emotions such as fear, therefore laboratory experiments on animals should be banned. (Compare this to emotional appeals, such as fear, pity, prejudice, etc.)

(Aristotle) What is artistic proof? (Chapter 7 )

- Support for a claim that originates with the advocate. -Artistic proof consists of reasoning, analysis, inspiration and/or creativity on the part of the advocate (speaker). - Artistic proof is constructed: we create the evidence. Arguments that the speaker must invent. Ex. Definition, comparison, relationships, circumstances, testimony, notation and conjugates.

Tests of evidence (e.g., testimony) (Chapter 7 )

- Three Types of Testimony: o 1) Personal or Lay: Personal experience or knowledge by someone considered a non-expert, e.g., a witness of an event. o 2) Expert: Knowledge from someone considered credible to address the issue and its claims, e.g., "The forensic scientist said the homicide occurred between 9 and 11am." o 3) Concurrent: A knowledge consensus, e.g., "Five vascular surgeons agree that elevating your legs during pregnancy decreases the change of developing varicose veins."

The nature of credibility and its characteristics (e.g., trustworthiness, expertise) (Chapters 1 and 2)

-(Aristotle) What are the 3 appeals? o Ethos - appeal to the integrity and expertise of the writer. o Logos - an appeal to appropriate and logical arguments. o Pathos - an appeal to the audience's sympathies

Why do we need evidence? (Chapter 7 )

-- We need sound evidence to provide adequate support for our claims -- We need evidence to convince people to change their minds and believe our claims. -- "... there is substantial empirical data and centuries of commonsense observation to support the idea that, when properly presented, most decision makers are influenced by evidence." ( Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson - "evidence" about evidence) --Evidence is a key part of advocacy (speeches)

Argument as part of persuasion (Chapters 1 and 2)

--1. Arguments are influence attempts Ex. Designed to change beliefs, attitudes, behaviors. --2. Audience-centered. Ex. Develop arguments with a target audience or specific listeners in mind and their frame of reference. --3. Arguing characterized by controversy. Ex. Disputes whenever uncertainty arises about the outcome.

According to Wayne Brockriede, there are various "types" of arguers. What are these "types" and which characteristics does each have? Please provide an example of each arguer "type" and explain why you categorized them as such.

--One of the types of arguers that Brockriede discusses is the type of person who views the people that they are arguing with as objects or subservient to them. (Rapist) Talks to the audience as inferior; want to manipulate and control --The next type of arguer is the type who uses charm and persuasion to trick people into thinking that they are right, without any regard on how it affects the people that they are fooling. This argument type is used to appeal to a person, or group of people, and get them on the same side as the arguer, even though it will not always be in their best interest. (Seducer)Persuades the audience through charm and deceit; They persuade for personal objectives and gratification --The final type of arguer is the type who realizes and acknowledges that people are intelligent, and therefore can make their own decisions. (Lover)Treat others as humans; want equality and want to keep a bilateral relationship

Doing research (Chapters 5 and 8)

-Define Research (determine the general purpose -persuade or inform) - Planning the research Process (reasearch plan/ general sources) - Sources of Info (Interviewing Experts/ General Sources/ specialized Sources) - The internet - Computer Databases - Books

Knowing and assessing your audience What are the variables used to assess an audience? (CH. 3 & 4)

1. Age 2. Social Affiliations 3. Gender 4. Education and Knowledge 5. Background and Experience 6. Culture

How to Record the evidence Research

1. Author's name 2. Authors qualifications 3. Source information 4. Date 5. Page Number

4 Ethical Standards of Argumentation

1. Clarity 2. Honesty 3. Efficiency 4. Relevance Ethics is a person's moral code that helps determine how they act, would play a very similar role during an argument, as they influence how a person would feel about a topic.

The functions of language (CH. 3 & 4)

1. Emotive (Expressive) 2. Phatic (Social) 3. Cognitive (Informative) 4. Rhetorical (Persuasive) 5. Meta-Lingual (Talk about Talk) 6. Poetic (Aesthetic)

Characteristics of the positive view of argument (Chapters 1 and 2)

1. Invokes pro-social activity. 2. Argument as a means of discovery; as a way of learning and knowing. 3. Argument as a key ingredient in decision making and problem solving. 4. Argument as a means for identifying and evaluating alternatives. 5. Argument as a way to get issues out in the open; helping people to know where they stand. 6. Argument as a peaceful means of conflict resolution.

Characteristics of the negative view of argument (Chapters 1 and 2)

1. Neg. Connotations with arguing: hostility, fighting, animosity 2. People relate negative behaviors with arguing: yelling, defensiveness, attacking, closed- mindedness. 3. People refer to argument as a negative personality trait. 4. People employ euphemisms to describe arguments A double edged sword of emotion. -- "We weren't arguing, we were just having a discussion."

Techniques for analyzing propositions (Chapters 5 and 8) pg.80

1. define the key terms of any proposition 2. Establish the Point of clash(Stasis) --Use of stock issues --System Analysis Theory Developing Propositions and Claims--Guidelines 1. Clarity...Is the proposition or claim clear; is there sufficient precision? 2. Balance...Is it fair? Does it account for a contrary view? 3. Controversy...Is there substantive disagreement and the potential of a better decision through argument?

The principle of presence (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca) What is the principle of presence? (CH. 3 & 4)

A notion that stressed that arguers should take steps in an order that their arguments they create will be seen as especially important to their audience. Ex. Use of repetition

(Types of evidence) What are premises? (CH. 7) Anecdotal: based on a persons observations of the world An established point of agreement between the advocate and audience. A point accepted without the requirement of additional support. A claim that is accepted by an audience and can therefore be used as one uses evidence. BASIS: Personal Knowledge - Firsthand experience that serves as evidence. BASIS: Cultural Knowledge - shared values and shared truth common to a culture/group.

A point/s accepted without requirement of additional support. Ex. Personal knowledge is true because we have firsthand experience.

(Brockriede) What is argument? (Chapters 1 and 2)

A process where people reason their way from one set of problematic ideas to the choice of another. o Professor Wayne Brockriede proposed the following characteristics of argument: -- 1. An inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption/or reinforcement of a belief. -- 2. A perceived rationale to support that leap. -- 3. A choice among two or more competing claims. -- 4. Reduction or regulation of uncertainty. -- 5. A willingness to risk confrontation of one's claim with others. -- 6. A common frame of reference shared optimally

What is language? (CH. 3 & 4)

A shared symbol system.

(Types of evidence) What are testimonies? (CH. 7) information coming from an authority in that area

A statement that consists of observations and judgements by the advocate or sources cited by the advocate. Ex. Descriptive testimony: refers to the observation of supposedly factual information. Ex. Interpretive testimony: involves making judgements or drawing inferences from the facts in discussion.

What are propositions/ claims? (Chapters 5 and 8)

A statement that expresses the subject of the dispute, is broad, general, and hold potential disagreements. --A proposition is a broad, general claim, a kind of "super-claim" or general thesis. --Issues are points of potential disagreement within the general proposition (focal points of arguments).

What is the value hierarchy? (CH. 3 & 4)

A system of values that are arranged according to their priority for an individual or within a particular community.

Building arguments and advocacy case

Advocate by Building a Case -- A case is a structured set of arguments (claims with evidence) on a controversial issue, assembled to influence the attitudes, values, and beliefs , and/or behaviors of a particular audience. -- Audience analysis is essential to case development. -- What arguments will generate audience support for the overall position?

System Analysis

An alternative approach for the analysis of proposition, especially propositions of policy, is provided by general system theory and a method known as system analysis. -->System theory presumes that the constituent parts (components) of a system are independent - might expect the change to influence the other component -->Systems are characterized by an ordered sequence of events. Becuase systems are designed to acheive some purpose; their component parts must all function in accordance with their established purpose -->System components are connected to and controlled by each other -->System entail both a structure and a set of processes

Evidence and the audience (Chapter 7 ) Evidence that is... "accepted by the audience"

Analyzing your audience well is essential for selecting appropriate evidence for you claims Take into consideration your audience's world-view Take into consideration your audience's expertise/background Take into consideration your audience's beliefs, values and attitudes

What are values? -definition and distinctions (CH. 3 & 4) a person's principles or standards of behavior.

Are evaluative beliefs. When we make judgments about right and wrong we infer values. Inferences and constructs about good (bad), appropriate (inappropriate), just (unjust), essential (nonessential), desirable (undesirable) are values. Ex. "Mad Max: Fury Road" was a really great movie. The special effects were amazing. You should buy it on DVD." Values defined in the book as "abstract ideals either positive or negative, not tied to any specific attitude, object, or situation, representing a person's beliefs about ideal modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals."

(Reasoning patterns) What is Inductive reasoning? (CH. 6) (Specific --> broad) (top) Information pattern tentative hypothesis (bottom) theory

Arguing from a specific example to a general conclusion Described as arguing from specific cases to more general conclusions. Ex. All chickens that we have seen have been brown; so, all chickens are brown.

What is argument? (Chapters 5 and 8)

Argumentation - making and having arguments - is a significant dimension of rhetoric Arguments we make, including argument advocacy speeches, are rhetorical acts

What is an Argument "Case"? (top) Issue Position/Proposition or Thesis (mid) Claim (bottom) Grounds/Evidence

Argumentation in a case consists of: Valid evidence that support claims on defined issues. The order generally is: General issue position, supported by claims, backed up by evidence. The claims and evidence follow a pattern of reasoning

Explain the difference between arguments and arguing. Rational arguments contain three basic elements: - the grounds used as the basis/ premise to develope claim - The reasoning that justifies the inferential leap from grounds to claim - conclusion drawn from the grounds and reasoning

Arguments are the claims that people make when they are supporting their beliefs and opinions. Arguing is the "process of resolving differences of opinion through communication." The difference between these two is that arguments are the points that people make while they are arguing about a topic. The other sense of the word argument, which the book refers to as argument-2,

Dissociation (Chapter 6)

Arguments that disengage one idea from another and seek a new evaluation of both ideas.

What are ornamental metaphors? (CH. 3 & 4)

Asks audiences to see that phenomenon A has some characteristics that resembles phenomenon B. Ex. "Peter is as strong as an ox."

The Toulmin model of argument What are the parts to the Toulim Model? (CH. 6) 1. Claim- Assertion you hope to prove 2. Evidence - Support/rationale for the claim 3. Warrant - Connection (often unspoken) between "claim" and "evidence" 4. Backing- Support for the warrant 5. Rebuttal - Potential objection to the claim 6. Qualifier - Limits put on the claim

Claim - Conclusion of the argument; that statement which the advocate wishes the audience to believe. Grounds - foundation or basis for the claim; also called evidence, support, DATA. Warrant - reasoning that authorizes the inferential leap from the grounds to the claim. Backing - support for the warrant. Qualifier - strength of the claim; also called modality. Rebuttal - exceptions or limitations to the claim; also called reservation.

What are argumentative metaphors? (CH. 3 & 4)

Contends that phenomenon A should be seen as phenomenon B. Ex. When Regan urged Americans to see the Soviet Union as "the evil empire," he meant the comparison between the communists and the villains of Star Wars.

Types of propositions/claims (Chapters 5 and 8)

Definitional propositions: Statements that state what something is, by defining it (defining key terms). -- Ex. "Marijuana is a natural herb." Fact propositions: Statements of what we believe to be true or untrue. They are empirically verifiable. --Ex. Can be sustained by using external proof. --"Marijuana has medical benefits." Value propositions: (A.k.a. judgment claims) Evaluative in nature and they are normative. --Ex. They state what is right or wrong, better or worse, good or bad. --"Marijuana is a healthier option to pharmaceuticals." --Based on the opinions and beliefs of arguers and their audience - no evidence to make the claim completely true. Policy propositions: Statements that advocates a specific course of action, behavior, rules, requirements, or change in policy. --Ex. Include "should" or "ought to" or, "need to." --"Marijuana should be legalized for medical purpose in the U.S."

Connecting claims; the relationship between claims (Chapters 5 and 8)

Fact and Definition Claims can support Value Claims Value Claims can Support Policy Claims Fact, Definition, and Value Claims can support Policy Claims The Claims Pyramid

(Types of evidence) What are statistics? (CH. 7) numbers used to support your claim

Facts & figures systematically collected & ordered to convey information. Ex. Descriptive statistics: Numeric representations that present the entire set of instances of a phenomenon. Ex. Inferential statistics: Numeric representations that attempt to infer the properties of a population from inspection of sample drawn from that population.

Types of Evidence

From (and connected to) the audience - Premises From experience (examples) Our own Others' The importance of stories From external (outside) authority -- Testimony: Truthfully reported experiences of others. Judgments about how an event or state of affairs is to be understood, evaluated, or dealt with. --Statistics: Facts & figures systematically collected & ordered to convey information --Artifacts: Physical evidence that helps prove an argument. Virtual evidence

The concepts that video clips illustrate

In the Footloose movie clips we watched, Ren McCormick (Kevin Bacon) presented a number of claims. A.) Identify a policy claim he presented B.) Identify a fact claim he presented What is a Rhetorical Act? Draw the claims pyramid with an example

Argumentation and decision making (both individual and democratic) o Argumentation is reason-giving discourse - thinking critically about ideas Informed decision makers rely on argumentation when they make decisions - They research this issues - They examine the alternatives - They encourage different points of view - They are critical thinkers o Informed decisions are basing your decision on credible information and arguments (Chapters 1 and 2)

Individual - Personal decisions that occur in one's life everyday that test our analytical and argumentative abilities. - Involve decisions that are small or big. Democratic - Requires the mastery of of subject matter knowledge, ability to reason, articulate opinions, and ability to defend them when others disagree. - Involve decisions that are big.

The point of clash (Chapters 5 and 8)

Is the "stasis" or place where you choose to dispute the arguments developed by the opponent. Hermagoras developed a stasis theory to explain major points of disagreement 1. Conjecturing about a fact: arguer seeks to establish/dispute a material claim 2. Definition: Arguer contends that while a material fact may be true, it's not described/ defined precisely. 3. Quality: Arguers assert that although the material facts might be true, and although the material evidence is correct, other aspects influencing the material quality of the claims might lead to a different interpretation 4. Objection: A decision to draw stasis at the level of interpretation

What is rhetoric? (Chapters 5 and 8)

Is the study of all processes by which people influence each other through symbols. Aristotle refers to "the available means of persuasion" - producing reasongiving discourse that is grounded in social truths - Rhetoric accounts for the audience and the meanings the audience may construct

(Reasoning patterns) What is deductive reasoning? (CH. 6) (top) theory hypothesis observation (bottom) confirmation (Broad --> Specific)

Moving from accepted principles or truths to a specific case Moving from overall theories or generally accepted principles to conclusions about specific cases. Ex. All birds have feathers and robins are birds, so robins have feathers.

Synonyms for claims (Chapters 5 and 8)

Other terms for claim are "assertion," "conclusion," and "thesis."

Supporting the Grounds

Premise: A point accepted without needing additional support Presumption: audience likely to believe the premise unless told otherwise

Types of audiences in argument situations (CH. 3 & 4)

Primary or Target Audience - the audience for whom the argument is intended. Secondary Audience - parties receiving the argument message. Physical Audience - those who actually hear or receive the argument when it is presented.

Rhetoric is...

Public (one and many, to be engaged, consumed) Propositional (assertive) Purposive (goaloriented) Pragmatic (realistic, practical) Poetic (artistic) Powerful (capable of influence and action)

Stock Issues for policy propositions

Recurring issues that come up in policy debates or discussions. Issues that rear throughout history, and as such, they are issues that seem to consistently draw the attention of arguers and of those who constitute the audiences for arguments. - Ill - Blame - Cure - Cost

What is abstract language? (CH. 3 & 4)

Refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents. Ex. Love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism).

What is concrete language? (CH. 3 & 4)

Refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. Ex. Spoon, table, velvet eye patch, nose ring, sinus mask, green, hot, walking.

Tests of Evidence

Reliability: Proven correct many times in the past. Can you trust the evidence? Expertise: Source's competence. Does the person know their stuff? Objectivity: The source has nothing to gain. Is the source neutral/impartial? vested interest? Consistency: Internal - self contradiction within the source? external - consistent with other sources? Recency: Sufficiently current. Is the evidence timely? (generally more important in factual disputes) Relevance: (consistency) Related to the claim being advanced. Does the evidence really prove the claim? Is the interpretation of the evidence correct? 7. Access: (is the source known) Source is in a position to make the observation. First hand experience? 8. Accuracy of Citation: (Correct Interpretation)Fully reported & not distorted. Is citation misrepresented?

What is reasoning? (CH. 6)

Relies on an inference, logical guess. Establishes a connection or relationship between things. Ex. Connects evidence with a claim.

Assembling the Case o Introduction o Purpose (stated or unstated) and Proposition o Body (Case): Primary content; main points/reasons o Conclusion

Select a topic or issue (e.g., electric cars) Clarify your "view" of the issue - your proposition or thesis (e.g., the Federal Government should support the development and marketing of electric cars). Develop a preliminary argument outline or brief (e.g., an inventory of relevant claims that can be supported). Consider how you want to organize your case -- Problem-Solution? -- Cause-Effect and Action? -- Ill-Blame-Cure?

The nature of propositions and claims (Chapters 5 and 8) Arguments that people make (Argument 1) consist of FOUR fundamental elements: o A PROPOSITION (a thesis - a general claim), supported by specific... o CLAIMS (assertions, statements) with... o GROUNDS/EVIDENCE (proof, support) that are held together through... o REASONING (e.g., by cause, by analogy)

Speaking as an Advocate -- Begins with a proposition or general claim -- A claim is a statement that the arguer presents; the point the arguer wants to make. -- A proposition is a general, broad claim -- Claims relate to issues and appear as reasons - A formally stated proposition clearly establishes the issues that are in dispute. - a formally stated proposition divides the ground between disputants - explicitly states propositions help disputants to see what might result from the completion of an argument - A formally stated proposition helps facilitate a clear argumentative clash, or sharply foccused disagreement between rival positions

(Types of evidence) What are examples? (CH. 7) Analogical: a comparable situation Evidence as... "support... from experience" When using personal experience, take the following into account: 1) Is it experience rather than opinion? 2) Is the experience directly relevant? 3) Does it highlight something not covered in other sources? 4) Is it generalizable through other forms of proof?

Specific instances or occurrences of a given phenomenon. Ex. Can be detailed or cursory. Can use artistic or inartistic proof.

(Aristotle) What is inartistic proof? (Chapter 7 )

Support for a claim that originates with someone other than the advocate. Inartistic proof consists of common knowledge, shared experience or physical evidence. Inartistic proof is cited: we deploy/use the evidence of others. Arguments that use quoting what others have said. Ex. Laws, witnesses, contracts, or oaths.

What are beliefs? -definition and distinctions (CH. 3 & 4)

The inferences we make or constructs we have about what is true and real in the world. Beliefs are essentially non-evaluative, non- judgmental. They appear as statements of truth or probability. Ex. "The OSU baseball team will win the Pac-12 championship this season."

Cure (the problem -Stock Issues)

The policy that is being proposed that will remedy the ill. Advocate's new policy that will remedy the ill. o A cure, not a treatment

What are attitudes? (CH. 3 & 4) -definition and distinctions (CH. 3 & 4)

The thoughts, feelings, and behavioral intentions that guide our predispositions toward people, situations, activities, and objects. Attitudes typically appear as statements of like and dislike. Ex. "I like cheesecake."

What is connotation? (CH. 3 & 4)

The value judgements and feelings that relate to the word. Ex. Common words

Cost (the problem -Stock Issues)

What will the proposed policy cost? The arguer who seeks to refute the need for policy, and the likely costs of the proposed policy change might be. (who benefits , who doesn't) o What will the proposed policy cost? Resources, lives, money, time, reputation, danger Alternatives are never free of cost Pro: in favor of maintain the status quo Negative:

According to the authors, what is necessary to gain adherence from the audience? Now, tell what is likely to gain adherence, and explain why it is important to consider both what is necessary and what is likely to gain audience adherence.

To gain adherence, it is necessary to bring factual information to the argument. Additionally, using the stock issues for policy propositions will help you to form a series of questions or topics that can be discussed to address concerns with the current system. The authors state that it is not only necessary to have the facts that support your argument to gain adherence. You must also have supporting evidence that will help sway the audience to your side. Using evidence that helps turn your argument into a real world situation that the audience can relate to is necessary to gain adherence. It is important to consider both of these factors because together they form the most solid and valid argument. By combining the policy propositions with the ability to make your argument appeal to the listener's sense of reality, you are much more likely to gain audience adherence.

What are particular values? (CH. 3 & 4)

Values held by individuals and groups.

What are universal values? (CH. 3 & 4)

Values held by society.

Blame (the problem -Stock Issues)

Who or what is responsible for the ill o Inherency: the problem will occur until the policy is changed --o Structural inherency (former policies in place that maintain the problem) -- o Attitudinal inherency (its an attitude towards the problem , negative or positive) --o No policy Advocate attempts to assign responsibility for the existence of an ill. ---Uses: Status Quo - the way things are now. -- Inherency - the problem will certainly repeat itself unless the current policy is changed. (Structural inherency, attitudinal inherency, policy makers havnt considered/addressed the problem)

Credibility and evidence (Chapter 7 )

credibility: refers to the audience assessment of the competence & trustworthiness of the source. (ethos)

The limits of argument (Chapters 1 and 2)

o Limits of the Negative View 1. "Pseudo Argument" Ex. arguing as a pretext for some other motive. 2. Verbal Aggressiveness Ex. name calling, insults, put downs. 3. Gamesmanship Ex. arguing for the sake of argument, disputes over insignificant topics

(Brockriede) Where is argument? (Chapters 1 and 2)

o Professor Brockriede asked "where do we find argument?" -- 1. People will find arguments where they find other people. -- 2. Argument is not simply a "thing" to be looked at but a concept people use and a perspective they take. -- 3. Argument is an open concept. -- 4. Argument is potentially everywhere. -- 5. Argument is a process whereby people reason their way from one set of problematic ideas to their choice of another

- ILL (the problem -Stock Issues)

o What is the problem or "ill" in the current system? o Must be significant o Quantitative Significance o Qualitative Significance Advocate to analyze the proposition by considering the inadequacies or problems in the existing system.