The Practice of Argumentation: Effective Reasoning in Communication

by David Zarefsky

This book uses different perspectives on argumentation to show how we create arguments, test them, attack and defend them, and deploy them effectively to justify beliefs and influence others. David Zarefsky uses a range of contemporary examples to show how arguments work and how they can be put together, beginning with simple individual arguments, and proceeding to the construction and analysis of complex cases incorporating different structures. Special attention is given to evaluating evidence and reasoning, the building blocks of argumentation. Zarefsky provides clear guidelines and tests for different kinds of arguments, as well as exercises that show student readers how to apply theories to arguments in everyday and public life. His comprehensive and integrated approach toward argumentation theory and practice will help readers to become more adept at critically examining everyday arguments as well as constructing arguments that will convince others.

282 pages, Paperback

Published September 19, 2019

Reviews

[Milky]

Yea its a little dry and takes long to explain some things.

What I took away from it is that arguments exist in the public sphere mostly or in technical/expert fields and personal fields.

An arguments strength will be determined by the amount of evidence it may have and what type of evidence it is, as well as who its coming from and context. Objective data can be evidence as examples, stats, tangible objects, direct observation. Social consensus can also be evidence, so can testimony.

Evidence can also be evaluated by accessibility, credibility, consistency, recency, relevance, adequacy.

Arguments can also be from analogy, sign, cause,.

Fallacies include vagueness, ambiguity, equivocation, heaps and slippery slopes, relevance.

Many arguments like policy arguments refute the present outcome and propose a better alternative.

The three roots of argument are logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Ive seen myself use more of the rhetoric by just being more persuasive based on the context and what appearance they might want to hold.

Within argumentation there is uncertainty which is what the argument is trying to come to conclusion.

There is always a risk in an argument as you risk being wrong and corrected.

Arguments may have subsidiary claims which may not be effective and a pivot is necessary.

Topoi are common places and patterns of issue.

Case construction is requires a number of claims, selection of supporting evidence, arrangement,]

Attacks - asking a question, identify deficiencies, point out inconsistencies, labeling opponent strategy, counter argument, recontextualizing the argument.

Defense - preemptive moves, arrangement.

Style matters as well as linguistic consistency, associations and dissociations, linguistic intensity.

Dissociation is breaking formerly held associations and forming new ones. redefine the term.

[Julia]

super dry

[Abby Brenner]

Very dry, even my professor dislikes this book. It has the proper information but takes way too long to explain.