Introduction
Evaluating an argument is crucial if we are to come up with a good judgment about the validity of certain statements. There is a need to critically examine the fairness, reliability and relevance of a given premise to establish if they are valid enough to support the conclusion. This paper aims to examine the given dialogues and provide a critical analysis of the arguments by evaluating the statements, on whether they provided a clear argument or not. Specifically, the statements will be examined against the ARG conditions to determine their acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of grounds in support of the conclusion.
Dialogue 1
a. In dialogue 1, the second character’s argument does not meet the challenge of an argument.
In Roger’s counter argument against Jim’s statement, he stated that, “the only country capable of bringing pressure on both sides, and that’s the most fundamental thing.” A closer analysis shows that he came up with a counter argument, but disregarded Jim’s statements. As provided for in A Practical Study of Argument, an argument’s conclusion must be supported “with an adequate reasoning from adequate premises” (Govier, 2009), and this element is apparently lacking in the second character’s response. Specifically, the argument provided for by Roger (second character) failed to meet the G condition, about the provision of sufficient evidence to make it reasonable enough to accept it. For one, not everyone will agree that the United States is the only country that can bring pressure to the conflicting Israeli’s and Palestinians. In addition to that, bringing pressure to these two countries may not be the fundamental measure to stop the conflict. Further, a closer look at Roger’s argument shows that he provided his own statement, based on his existing opinion, and he neglected to take into consideration the first character’s premises. Roger reacted to Jim’s arguments by simply expressing his disagreement, and immediately pointing to his own reasons and opinion.
Evaluation Based on the ARG
In the first character’s statement (Jim), it was argued that a mediator should always be neutral, as failing to be so is unfair to the other party and may lead to the failure of the mediation process to work. These initial statements are acceptable and are reasonable enough for a rational person to accept it, however, they do not provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion. Further, Jim’s argument about neutrality being the most important qualities of a mediator is largely based on opinion, and while this premise appears reasonable and acceptable enough for many people, it does not possess the relevance and sufficiency of grounds to support the conclusion that the United States cannot serve as a good mediator between the two conflicting countries.
The second character’s argument, he dismissed the first character’s statement outright without giving further consideration. Roger talked past the Jim’s argument by simply voicing his disagreement against the conclusion and providing his own reason. An examination of Roger’s statements according to the ARG guidelines shows that the given premise has some relevance in relation to the conclusion. However, it is still a weak argument because the premise is not relevant to the conclusion, much less that it does not provide sufficient evidence to support it.
Dialogue 2
The second character’s response in dialogue 2 does not meet the challenge of an argument. While Peter recounted his positive experience about the use of hypnosis, he did not present it in a way to convince or to support a conclusion. Not that the presented statement was not adequately rational, but that the second character’s statement was not directed towards proving a conclusion. In this case, Peter does not aim to refute or prove the validity of a conclusion. When the second character stated, “I can see what you mean”, it means that he acknowledge and take into consideration the first character’s arguments.
Given the assumption that the second character’s argument serves to support a conclusion that hypnosis is helpful, Peter was able to support it with adequate reasoning, based on the premise that “hypnosis helped me a lot when I was quitting smoking. I used it once for dental work too, and it was great”. He acknowledged where the first character was coming, and mentions his experience that refutes the argument that hypnosis is dangerous. Peter did not simply gave a counter argument that contradicted the statement of the first character, but asked Steve why and proceeded to talk about his good experience with hypnotic procedures. By asking Steve about the reason why he will never allow himself to be hypnotized, Peter demonstrated a polite response to the premise, while further asking for a sub - argument to understand the former. While the dialogue did not specifically end with someone convincing the other, the flow of the discussion demonstrates a civil acknowledgement of the other party’s arguments. Consequently, in stating his own experience with hypnosis, Peter provided a good reason for rational individuals to weigh in and consider his arguments.
Evaluation Based on the ARG
In Steve’s argument, he expressed that he would never allow himself to be hypnotized by anyone and this is because by engaging in the process of hypnosis, he consents to letting others get into his mind which makes him vulnerable to the likelihood of being controlled. Thus, he concluded that hypnosis is dangerous because it subjects the mind to outside influence. Based on the ARG conditions, the arguments presented in this dialogue have relevant premises such that one finds them to be relevant to the conclusion, making them pass the R condition. However, Steve’s arguments do not have acceptable premise, such that a reasonable individual may find it questionable to immediately believe that the given premise is true. Further, there is no sufficient ground to validate the conclusion, which makes the arguments fail the A and G conditions. It is to be noted that there are premises that proved to be relevant to the conclusion, but do not provide sufficient grounds for a rational individual to accept the conclusion.
The second character’s argument in this dialogue showed that Peter considered the statements given by Steve. He asked why Steve has a negative belief against hypnosis, and the reasons why Peter arrived at such conclusions. In addition to that, Peter mentions that he understood what Peter means, but proceeded to discuss about how hypnosis has helped him. The second character provided a cogent argument which he supported by presenting his own experience. In examining Peter’s arguments against the ARG conditions, one may conclude that it is acceptable, relevant and holds sufficient ground to make a reasonable person change his or her mind about hypnosis. When Peter talked about his experience, he was able to meet the criteria on the relevance of an argument at the conclusion.
Dialogue 3
In the third dialogue, the second character’s response does not meet the argument challenge as discussed in the book.
This is so despite the fact that Kaithlyn also acknowledge the response of Nicholas which states that the decline in cycling related injuries decreased due to the implementation of new legislation on wearing helmets. She failed to consider the premises and reasoning provided for by the first character and from there started to question whether the statistics given were the valid outcome of such legislation. She did not question the truth about the statistics, and asked if such decreases are direct impact of the policy that compelled the use of helmet among young bike riders.
It is pointed out that a common tendency among people who do not agree with a given conclusion is to ignore the reasoning and the premises outright and directly offer the reasons that “we agreed with before we ever heard of the argument” (Govier, 2009). The problem with this process is that there is a higher likelihood to disregard arguments regardless of their validity and reasonableness, which means that one’s analysis of the premise and reasoning does not satisfy the argument challenge.She responded on the basis of her previous knowledge or opinion about the matter, and consequently ignored the premise given in the first statement. It is to be noted that failing to consider the premise and reasoning means a failure on the part of the arguer to consider the totality of the argument. This leads to the deprivation of the chance to ponder objectively on existing reasonings and standpoints. It is clear that the second character simply gave her opinion as a form of reaction, disregarding the reasoning of the first character.
Evaluation Based on ARG
The first character’s argument states that the legislations that compel children to wear helmets when bike riding is a good thing, as can be proven by statistics indicating that there is a decrease in cycling related injuries and hospitalization. An examination of the given premise and reasoning leads one to decide that the first character has a cogent argument. This means Nicholas provided an argument and a conclusion that is justified by adequate reasoning that supports it. This is after considering the argument and the conclusion as a whole, and were able to meet the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of grounds. There is therefore a need for the counter argument to come up with a refuting statement that may weaken the validity of these supporting arguments.
A thorough examination of an argument means that there is an adequate time and effort to critically evaluate the given dimensions. In the case of the second character, she did not come up with sufficient assessment of the quality of reasoning of the first arguer. Kaithlyn did not refute Nicholas’ argument by taking into consideration the reasonings, but instead, she came up with her own direct assumption about the given argument. In the textbook, in order to refute an argument, there is a need to present an independent argument demonstrating the falsity of the conclusion (Govier, 2009). This form of valid refutation, did not happen in Kaithlyn’s statement, rather, she jumped up into a reasoning that is failing to find flaws in Nicholas’ reasonings.
References
Govier, T. (2009). A practical study argument. Cengage Learning.
