Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
REASONABLENESS AND ARGUMENTATION - Coggle Diagram
REASONABLENESS AND ARGUMENTATION
HOW TO BE APPROPRIATE?
you have to resort to text types that are conventionally accepted > it's the convention that makes the content acceptable
Recognizable text <> recognizable meanings: genre, text type (length, structure, organization, style/formality, tense system)
It's more or less interdiscursivity, also found for acceptability, but
for acceptability
> writer uses the conventions to show that she/he can handle them, so she/he "accepted" as reliable
for adequacy
: writer uses the conventions to make meaning easy to understand
HOW TO BE CONVINCING?
For reasoning/argumentative texts
: the most important thing is reasonableness (premises-conclusions) > you want to make a point and demonstrate that your idea is right
REASONABLENESS
: you tend to think that an argument is convincing when it's reasonable, credible, logical > therefore reasonableness is essential when writing an argumentative text
3 types
Geometrical/logical
: purely based on abstract reasoning/on formal validity/on syllogisms, ex given its condition + given this rule > results
It's often the basis of logical fallacies
Anthropological/rhetorical
: purely based on shared assumptions (you just accept what is said)
It is reasonable by proxy, if everyone thinks a certain thing you tend to think they are right in order to align to the opinion of your community/like-minded people
Critical
: opposite of the rhetorical one, this is precisely meant for those you do not share your opinion and, therefore, it opens a discussion and it's meant to integrate different points of view, it's intrusive
ARGUMENTATION
How to use what is accessibel through culture/notions that are accepted in your community and ideologies (in favor or against something, hegemonic or non-hegemonic)
to make your point
, by balancing
What is
commonly accepted/easily rocognizable by your community
(doxa, cultural knowledge)
Data
(WHAT): a general topic
Claim
(HOW/evaluation/appreciation): your standpoint about the data
Ideologies
, both in favor and against your claims. By combining both elements, you sound objective, competent and you show a hierarchy between the claims, making the ones that are against your point appear weak
favor
of your claim
Warrant
(WHY are you making this claim - general answer): a generalization (often implicit and ideology-saturated) justifying the claim
Backing
(WHY are you making this claim - specific answer): an additional statement supporting the warrant > often it's based on your experience
Qualifier
(WHEN/WHERE your claim applies - condition): an element that circumscribes the scope/posits conditions
against
your claim
Rebuttal
: (WHERE NOT/WHEN NOT - negative condition): a counter-statement indicating conditions under which the claim does not hold true (usually introduced by unless, only if...)
When counterclaims/negative conditions are missing
the text would be no long "persuasive", it would become an example of "manipulation"
informative texts would become a form of propaganda
argumentative texts by omitting certain pieces of information would become a form of advertising
For expository/descriptive texts (news)
: "informativeness" is fundamental (reliability of information)
For advertisements (info < appeal)
: it differs from the first two kinds of texts because it's mainly meant to attract the attention of the public (even disrespecting the maxims of quality, relation... to be engaging)
For promotional texts (info is as important as the appeal)
: they are meant to emphasize positive things about someone/something without necessarily exaggerating
WHY IS ARGUMENTATION RELEVANT?
Illusion of objectivity
: in some cases the perception of reality is kind of fuzzy, reality is not as clear as we expect it to be and the same portion of reality can be interpreted in two acceptable ways > it's a matter of perception, which biased by our senses that influence the way we see reality
very often it is due to omission (you don't have some pieces of information) or perception (our senses are not developed enough to process reality, often because reality is too complex)
We tend to interpret reality on the basis of the repertoire we are familiar with; if we focus on what we see it's easy to get close to reality, while if we are accustomed to using filter/models, that filter becomes too strong and it distances us from reality
Reality is just a continuum of dynamix and relations between plenty of completely different factors > it's a series of micro-actions that are interconnected
fact/event
: undefined continuum of points
information
: prioritization of given points > the points you select will lead you to one possible interpretation of reality