Academic Argumentation<\/p>\n
“Academic argumentation takes place when assertions are presented with supporting evidence o an audience who will agree or disagree but won’t vote or otherwise make a binding decision.” (p. 257 e-text)\u00a0 Dr. Pullman goes on to highlight, “The hallmark of academic argumentation is an awareness of opposing points of view.”\u00a0 These statements provide segue into the blueprint for academic arguments that, per Dr. Pullman, should include, at minimum, the assertion and proof.<\/p>\n
This chapter is one that, I believe, most would think of as rhetoric without taking a formal instruction on the topic.\u00a0 The classic images of Perry Mason, Matlock. or\u00a0Atticus Finch all developing the rhetorical premises that are based on assertions and proof.\u00a0 My personal grain-rub comes with the statement that you “ideally…want the audience (or reader) to supply the conclusion.\u00a0 But almost always you have to say it yourself.”\u00a0 I believe, that it is in the best interest of the rhetor to always stay in command and control of the argument.\u00a0 In order to do this, the best way it to make sure that the presentation is controlled and proper guidance to the desired conclusion.\u00a0 If you are making a presentation to persuade, you know what conclusions you want the audience to draw.\u00a0 I believe that proper navigation to that end is what a skilled rhetor does without the overt appearance of such.\u00a0 The evidence, proof, systematic presentation that guides to the conclusion should all flow seamlessly together where the end is a logical (dare I say, natural) occurrence.<\/p>\n
Another intriguing element of this chapter is that of Irving Younger’s 10 Commandments of brevity, be plain spoken, lead with questions, ask the question that you know the answer, listen to answers, no quarreling with the witness, do not allow explanation from the witness, do not request a repeat of testimony from a witness, limit excessive questions, keep the explanation to the summation.\u00a0 If Presidential debates consisted of only half of these, how many substantive debates would we have seen?<\/p>\n
I must admit that one of my admonishments to my children was to do to the opposite of one of the above–“Do not ask a question for which you already have the answer.”\u00a0 (pg. 275 e-text)\u00a0 I have instructed them that it bores and irritates individuals when they do that…and I still hold to that; nevertheless, in the case of courtroom debate I most definitely see the validity of that.<\/p>\n
The “corollary” to that rule of not asking a question for which you are not “prepared for the answer” also is sage advice.\u00a0 My husband taught me early in our marriage to not ask a question for which you might not like the answer, i,e. “Does this make me look fat?” or “How does my cooking taste?”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Academic Argumentation “Academic argumentation takes place when assertions are presented with supporting evidence o an audience who will agree or disagree but won’t vote or otherwise make a binding decision.” (p. 257 e-text) Dr. Pullman goes on to highlight, “The hallmark of academic argumentation is an awareness of opposing points of view.” These statements provide … <\/p>\n