1
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

•It is not just being uncivil or trying to pressure someone into doing
something. (Abuse must stop and discussion directed to the issue.)ABUSE
•It is not two people physically fighting with each other. (Physical attacks
do not address issues.)
PHYSICAL
ATTACK
•It is not verbal insults, swearing at someone, calling them names, or
losing one’s temper. Nor is it just idle threats at someone to amuse allies.
(Verbal attacks do not address issues either)
VERBAL ATTACK
•It is not just saying “no” or disagreeing without a reason. Nor is it just
contradicting someone. (There is a need to learn reasons or premises)DENIALS
Notice this scene: Monty Python, Argument Clinic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE
An argument must have two components, a premise and a conclusion.
PREMISE: A basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds. A
statement of facts and evidence upon which the conclusion is based.
CONCLUSION: A result or outcome. A final opinion, decision or
judgement. A reasoned deduction or inference. A proposition concluded
or inferred based on the premises of an argument.
2

Distance: Group views are far apart on some
relevant scale, great disagreement and little
common ground.
Differences: Internally or between groups, they
are more different and with little value similarity.
Antagonism: Groups are more polarized when
they feel more hatred, disdain, fear or other
negative emotions toward people of the other group.
Incivility: Groups are more polarized when they
talk more negatively about the people of the other
group.
Rigidity: Groups are more polarized to the extent
that they treat their values as undisputable and will
not compromise.
Non-disclosure: Groups are more polarized when
one or both of the groups refuse to share valid,
verifiable information or they distract with useless
information.
Gridlock: Groups are more polarized to the extent
that they are unable to cooperate and work together
toward common goals.
Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018
Distance:
Differences
Antagonism
Incivility
Rigidity
Non-disclosure
Gridlock
3

Take the personal emotions out of the problem
Look behind the positions for interests
Insist on objective standards
Invent options beforehand
Develop a BATNA (Best alternative to a negotiated agreement)
Soft negotiator
Maintain relationship
at any cost
Hard negotiator
Win at any cost without
concern for relationship
Source: “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In”, by Roger Fisher, PENGUIN BOOKS, 2011
4

Operating separately using both
strengths and weaknesses
5
Operating jointly using
each’s strengths far more
for total increased benefit
WIN LOSE
Lose Win
Win
Lose
Lose Win
Win
Lose
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

Lose less: Lose but less that other Lose more: Lose more than other
Win more: More successful than other Win less: Less successful than other
WIN LOSE
Beggar your neighbor
Does the person you’re negotiating with show any concern for you?
– If there are no concern for you, and the issue requires
a long-term relationship, avoid working with that person if possible.
Gray area wins
Gray area losses
Lose Win
Win
Lose
Lose Win
Win
Lose
6Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com
Both
can win
equally

7Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

ATTENTION:
ENERGY:
MEMORY:
TARGET
Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 8
ATTENTION: Incivility draws people’s attention in one
direction, sometime to hid other issues. People are
redirected to shocking statements. It surprises people.
Also, it can misdirect attention from an issue.
ENERGY: Seeing someone being uncivil on a topic of
interest can generate energy from a state of
powerlessness.
MEMORY: Shocking statements are hard to forget.
TARGET GROUP: The best target group of people that
would believe someone being uncivil are people that feel
they are in powerless, stressful, unfair situations.
The cost of too much incivility is polarization
as mentioned above.

People with opposite opinions might still be
able to cooperate if …
they share enough common goals….
they are humble enough to admit that they
do not know the whole truth….
and they like each other enough to listen to
each other, understand each other and work
toward mutually beneficial agreements.
In contrast, they will not be able to
accomplish anything if …
there are no shared goals both can work
on…
they despise each other…
they refuse to listen…
they are very overconfident and think
they need no help…
and they lose all willingness or ability to
reach a compromise. 9Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

You may lose the argument but…
•Win by learning
•Win by gaining respect for his incite and
expertise
•Win by gaining humility and the
understanding you’re not always right
•Win by looking at the issue from a different
perspective
You may win the argument but…
•Don’t learning anything
•Don’t gain respect for him
•Don’t gain any humility
•Don’t see another perspective
10
Arguments are good!
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com
Thank you for your opinion.
Now, we can explore detailed
premises and assumptions
regarding your position.

Outspoken, opinionate person
Person with vested interest in
argument
Nobel Prize winner, PhD, researcher
but in wrong field
Well known person with little
expertise in field
Well recognized Massive supporting up-to-date data
Get well sourced expert opinions
Be aware of pseudo experts (someone expert in another specialty).
Be aware of strong opinions based on old data or unreliable sources.
11
Verify and use critical thinking skills
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

JUSTIFIES BELIEF:
JUSTIFIES ACTION:
EXPLAINS WHY:
Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 12
BELIEF: It gives reasons why someone should
believe a particular thing.
ACTION: It gives reasons why, when and
where a particular action should be taken.
WHAT HAPPENED: It explains why something
happened.

Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 13
Argument stoppers
1. Guarding: Initially, using words like “all” can make your argument
less believable stopping discussion. Also, using vague, non-provable
terms can also stop discussion.
2. Assuring: Someone saying, “Trust me, I know it all” can stop
discussion.
3. Evaluating: Initially, using terms like “good” or “bad” without any
explanation can discourage a discussion getting started. They could
block the exposure of important information and valuable premises.
4. Discounting: A way to stop an argument is to anticipate what the
position and premises of the other person are and decide ways to
weaken those premises before they are announced.
The important issue is to identify these four discussion stoppers above to
determine how open or closed the person is to have a quality exchange of
opinions. Then, you can better keep the discussion going which could lead to
achieving something for both parties.

Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 14
Questions to consider:
1. Is the general group stereotype true for each individual?
2. Is there enough data to make the generalization believable?
3. Is the data biased?
4. Are the premises true in all cases?
Stereotype generalizations must be filtered down to smaller sub-
generalizations and then right down to the individual.
How much breaking down to sub-generalizations must we do? The
answer to that is how important the issue is. Some stereotypes we can
just ignore, as they are not important. Others must be broken down into
great detail because of their importance and impact on people. People
must weigh the value of each issue which is different for everyone.

Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 15
Steps to evaluate:
1. OBSERVATION: First there is some observation of opinion offered.
How much observation (and how often) is determined by the
importance of the issue.
2. HYPOTHESIS: Some hypothesis or reason for that observed is
developed. The hypothesis is an inference based on a set of generally
acceptable standards.
3. COMPARISON: That hypothesis is compared with other hypothesis
and evaluated as to which is the more accurate or true. How many
comparisons again will be determined by the importance of the issue.
Errors can be made in not getting enough comparisons. In other cases,
the premises are so obvious that no further explanation is required.
4. CONCLUSION: From the comparison analysis, the conclusion is
reached as to being correct.

Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 16
Steps to evaluate believability:
1. EXPERTISE SUBJECT: Does the person have authority in the
appropriate field? Being a specialist is one field doesn’t necessarily
make him an expert in another.
2. MOTIVE: Can the authority be trusted. Does it have any motive to
withhold or make false statements? Is there self-interest of the
authority? To confirm one authority, it might be wise to seek a totally
separate, independent authority. See if the second authority will
defend the original authority.
3. SOURCES: Are the source offered by the person recognized experts.
Get and make experts’ opinions as transparent as possible.
4. AGREEMENT: Is there agreement among many experts within the
same specialty? This there debate among them?
If you are making decisions for many people with the information you are
gathering, to support your decision when explaining it to those people,
these steps are doubly important.

Source: “THINK AGAIN, How to Reason and Argue”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Oxford University Press, 2018 17
Two Problems:
1. VAGUENESS: This occurs when a word or sentence is not
precise enough for its context that leads to confusion by offering
many ways to interpret its true meaning and intent. “It is big.” “It”
must be defined if it is not obvious. Also, “big” must be compared
to something that everyone has agreed on.
2. AMBIGUITY: This occurs when a sentence could have two
distinct meanings. “Police killed man with axe.” Who held the
axe? “My neighbor had a friend for dinner.” Did he eat his friend?

18
There is a lot of psychology and emotions in the business of selling,
both for the salesman and the customer. Salesmen must learn to
understand and master these emotions.
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

19
How does a salesman react
when the customer directly
attacks him, his company and
their products?
Sometimes the salesman feels the customer is in full control.
He feels helpless and at a loss, as to what to do next.
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com

20
One response to customer rejection
“ MR. DEFENSIVE”: You are completely wrong!
If the customer says he has no interest in the salesman, his company or his products
because the company is no good, the salesman could respond like this:
"You are wrong! We are the best company in the country. Where did you get such a silly
opinion?"
Feelings
Chance of making the sale
Chance of building a business
relationship
Chance of continuing to make
other contacts that day
Chance of making
better contacts in the future
from what you have learned
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com
Anger, frustration, rejection
Low, below average
Very poor
Below average
Below average

21
Second response to customer rejection
If the same customer says the same thing to you, you could respond like this:
"You are probably right. How did you find out about me, my company and our products?"
DEFEATIST: You are right. Our products are not all that good.
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com
Feelings
Chance of making the sale
Chance of building a business
relationship
Chance of continuing to make
other contacts that day
Chance of making
better contacts in the future
from what you have learned
Helplessness, defeat,
depression, dejection
Very low, below average
Very poor
Below average
Below average

22
Third response to customer rejection
If the same customer says the same thing to you, you could respond like this:
"Why do you say that? You may know something I do not know, as I have never heard
that opinion before." Then, get the customer to give you solid premises. He may have
good facts or no facts at all!
"RATIONAL OBSERVER": What makes you say that?
Questioning, observing, listening
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com
Feelings
Chance of making the sale
Chance of building a business
relationship
Chance of continuing to make
other contacts that day
Chance of making
better contacts in the future
from what you have learned
Confidence, through questions
in control, secure
Average to above average
Average to Very good
Very good
Very good

23
Ron McFarland, ronmcfarl@gmail.com