2. Perspectives on Argumentation
Argumentation is a complex process with many dimensions
and for centuries scholars have differed on how it should be
described and explained.
Some hold the view that arguers have an obligation to
determine the truth through the use of true premises
(evidence) and sound reasoning.
Others argue that the “truth” frequently cannot be
decisively determined and that argumentation should be
studied as a means of influence in the social and political
marketplace.
Still others, noting the tension between rational and non-
rational factors of influence, have concluded that “a central
focus of argumentation is on discovering and applying the
general standards for determining what is true or
reasonable.”
3. Types of perspectives
The three perspectives of argument are:
Logical perspective:(It asks, is the argument sound?)
Focuses on the structure of an argument and on its logical soundness
when removed from the context.
Emphasizes the accuracy of the premises (a premise is an assumption
that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of two
declarative sentences or "propositions" known as the premises or along
with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion)and the
correctness of the linking and evidence to the claims they support.
presumes there are objective, universal standards for evaluating
validity/invalidity of arguments
arguments are unilateral (one sided), complete & self-contained
4. Dialectical perspective:(Asks- Has the discussion been handled so as
to achieve a candid and critical examination of all aspects of the issue
in question?
The capacity for any given procedure for argument to contribute to
reasoned and careful deliberation on an issue.
This perspective focuses on and enhances a candid, critical and
comprehensive examination of all positions relevant to the topic.
views argument as a back and forth, give and take process
arguments are multilateral, they evolve, change, and develop over time
5. Rhetorical perspective:(Asks: Has the arguer constructed the argument
so as to successfully influence a particular audience?)
Emphasizes the arguments effectiveness in persuading its
audience.
views arguments as being audience-centered
arguing is strategic: arguments must be adapted to the
listener’s frame of reference
standards for evaluating arguments are person-specific,
situation dependent
6. Co - orientational View of
Argument
A co - orientational approach to argument presumes
that the relationship between arguer and recipient is
as important as the content of the argument.
17. Summary
Claim is above LOD, zone of disagreement
Assumption is made by the arguer that evidence is
true ,therefore reasoning is provided
If evidence is true and reasoning makes sense then
claim is true.
So claim is in the zone of agreement below LOD
BUT
What happens if audience does not immediately agree
with evidence and evidence is above LOD in zone of
disagreement?
18. The idea of argument chain comes in.. This uses a proved
argument as evidence for unproved claim.
Next provide more evidence below LOD and support with
reasoning
If audience agrees then LOD rises.
Therefore claim is below LOD and audience agrees.
Previously disputed evidence is now proven conclusion, now it
gets connected with previous reasoning and LOD rises.
Relation between C, E and R . Argument depends on logic and
persuasion.
