Comm 304 Exam 2

Front 1

o Argument defined – 3 elements

Back 1

-Argument: A complete unit of proof, consisting of
o Data – the raw material for an argument
o Reasoning process – means of interpreting the data
o Conclusion – expresses the specific interpretation
o Must remain aware of unstated elements

Front 2

Assumption of Uniformity

Back 2

-Our ability to relate data and reach conclusions through reasoning rests on the assumption of uniformity
o There is order and predictability in the universe
 Without uniformity we cannot build on/learn from past experiences
o We can expect to find similarity and recurrence in our experiences
 Allows us to project our knowledge beyond immediate situation

Front 3

Data

Back 3

o Data – the starting point of an argument, the substance from which we reason (like the foundation of a building, must be solid)
o Two types of data

Front 4

Premises

Back 4

 Premises – fundamental assumptions or beliefs that we accept without external support
-Perceptual premises – assumptions about the nature of things
-Based on our personal view & past experience of the world
-Function as data because they are accepted without question
-They seem self evident
-Value premises – concern the worth of something (good or evil, right or wrong, important or trivial)
-Derived from parents, communities, religion, friends
-Assuming correctness of value premise can lead to unproductive argument
--Ignores existence of competing value system

Front 5

Evidence

Back 5

 Evidence – source materials external to us used to lend support or proof to a conclusion

Front 6

-Factual evidence

Back 6

potentially verifiable statements that describe real objects and events
-No potential for verification means it is not factual
-Seeks only to describe objects and events
-uses a variety of forms
--Verbal examples – detailed descriptions of specific instances, cases, or situations
--Statistics – numerical representations of examples
-Convenient for expressing large numbers of examples (1 is an example, 100 is a statistics)
-Must examine ways in which statistics were derived
--Descriptive historical statements – reports that something happened at a certain time and place
-Less detailed than verbal examples

Front 7

Expert Opinion Evidence

Back 7

authoritative statements that explain factual evidence
-Interprets meaning of objects or events
-Relies on special knowledge or experience of individual offering judgment

Front 8

Inductive reasoning

Back 8

o Inductive Reasoning- Synthetic process used in moving from particulars to probable conclusions
o Begins with specifics
o Inductive reasoning interprets data through synthesis: reaching beyond the data through an inferential leap to identify a probable uniform pattern
o Moves to either general (class-inclusive) or specific conclusions
 “We examined 50 cows and all 50 cows gave milk. We saw some new cows. The new cows will give milk.”
o Begins with particulars - Begins with specific cases, instances or situations
 Statistics summarize numerous examples which are based on observation/experience
• The real instance/situation is the ultimate basis for reasoning
o “We examined 50 cows and they all gave milk

Front 9

Synethic process

Back 9

o Synthetic process – concerned with bringing data together into a meaningful pattern or whole
 Must move beyond raw data through an inferential leap to identify a uniform pattern
• Inferential leap – extension beyond the data; a willingness to look beyond what we can observe and apply it to what we can’t
o “We saw new cows.”

Front 10

Probable conclusions

Back 10

o Probable conclusions - Moving beyond the data makes conclusions less certain than original data
 Even if initial data can be validated absolutely, cannot be certain of conclusion
• “The new cows will give milk.”

Front 11

Deductive reasoning

Back 11

o Deductive Reasoning- Analytic process used in moving from generalities to structurally certain conclusions
o Begins with generalities
o Arrives at specific or less general class conclusions
 “All medical doctors have college degrees. Dr. Smith is a medical doctor. Dr. Smith has a college degree.”
o Begins with generalities - begins with general statements that may be descriptive or evaluative in nature
 must establish class categories (provides the “whole” necessary for analysis)
• “All doctors have medical degrees.”

Front 12

Analytic process and tructurally certain conclusions

Back 12

o Analytic process – breaking down the whole into its parts
 Attempts to apply established insights to new situations by including or excluding the parts of a whole
• Relates parts to the whole through inclusion in, or exclusion from, a class
o “Dr. Smith is a medical doctor.”
o Structurally certain conclusions – conclusion does not move beyond the original data
 can be as certain of the truth of conclusion as we are of the truth of the first statements

Front 13

Conclusions

Back 13

 Conclusions express the specific condition, relationship, or judgment identified by the reasoning process’s interpretation of the data
 Answers one of three essential questions
 Is it? (existence)
 What is it? (essence)
 Why is it? (explanation)

Front 14

Conclusions of existance

Back 14

o Conclusions of Existence – assert that something is real or manifest or in a state of being
 Specific to a particular situation, case, or limited group
• “Someone must be home since the lights and TV are on.”

Front 15

Conclusions of Essence

Back 15

– identify an essential feature or basic attribute or characteristic property of something
 Universal – include all members of a class; inseparable from the class
• “Professors are hard-hearted because they never let me make up a test.”

Front 16

Conclusions of Explanation

Back 16

– relate phenomena to account for existence or make existence intelligible
 Looks at why things exist and why they are as they are
 May be universal or specific, depending on the data and reasoning
• “I gain weight during the summer because I eat more ice cream.”

Front 17

Symbolic revelation (Symbolically Revealed Premises)

Back 17

)– expressed through use of language (symbolically)
o Must attempt to determine what assumptions are being made by examining the language being used

Front 18

Symbolic revelation (Symbolically Revealed Premises)
--Categories of values

Back 18

o Must look at the role of values in our arguments
 Categories of values
 Artistic/aesthetic – beauty or good taste and their opposite
 Moral/ethical – right or wrong, good or bad
 Political – rights, laws, freedom
 Utilitarian – effective, practical
 By examining language being used, we get a sense of values being emphasized

Front 19

Symbolic revelation (Symbolically Revealed Premises)
--terminal or instrumental

Back 19

o Can also look at values as terminal or instrumental
 Terminal values – associated with goals or states of existence
 Equality, freedom, national security, self-respect
 Instrumental – provide means for attaining terminal values or describes desired behavior
 Ambition, honesty, independence, responsibility

Front 20

Symbolic revelation (Symbolically Revealed Premises)
--multiple values

Back 20

o Values do not exist independently of each other; We hold multiple values
 Values can be categorized as core or subordinate
 Freedom (core) v. freedom of religion or freedom of expression (subordinate)
 Value hierarchy – arranging competing values in order of importance (security v. freedom)
o Once again, in order to understand what value hierarchy is being used we must carefully examine the language being used

Front 21

Symbolic revelation (Symbolically Revealed Premises)
--Remember

Back 21

o Remember – Values are fundamental to our way of thinking, arguing and legislating
 Cannot remove them from the process
 Must understand how value concepts are used as data

Front 22

Community-Inferred Premises

Back 22

Community-Inferred Premises – there may be no previous verbal statements from which to discover premises
• We must examine personal premises and analyze audience in order to make inferences about what premises/values the community (and therefore, possibly, the opposition) holds

Front 23

--Examining Personal Premises

Back 23

 Examining Personal Premises – must first examine our own beliefs and assumptions
• What seems “self-evident” to us may actually be an extreme position that others do not share
• Must ask ourselves:
o What do I believe?
o Why do I believe it?
o Can the basis of my belief be reasonably denied?
• Have to strip away first and second level assumptions to get to the essential belief
• This essential belief will probably be shared by most reasonable people and can then be used as a starting point for inquiry and advocacy
This “universally self-evident” perception or value can now be used as data

Front 24

--Conducting Audience Analysis

Back 24

 Conducting Audience Analysis – allows us to discover premises for a particular audience
• Not universally self-evident, but a good starting point for arguments for that audience
• Not about having to sacrifice your beliefs or conclusions for that of the audience
• Looking to build arguments on those beliefs that you do share

Front 25

3 methods of audience analysis:

Back 25

1. Documents published by the group
 Many groups promote certain principles which are set down in a code, constitution, or creed
 Many groups publish magazines and newsletters
2. Interviews and discussions with group members
 Should be done whenever possible (lawyers interviewing jurors)
 Costly and time-consuming
3. Demographically based inference
 Works on assumption that people who share demographic traits (age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, religion) share similar attitudes

Front 26

Researching for evidence

Back 26

physical process; Research involves the systematic collection of evidence
At the very heart of inquiry
• Research is a search for the truth
• The Truth Is Out There (enjoy the search)
• Evidence must be used responsibly

Front 27

--involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 1)

Back 27

Developing a Research Plan
o General Issues research – used when the advocate first learns the proposition to be argued
 Begin by figuring out what you already know
 If you don’t know about the controversy, find articles that give a general overview of the topic
• Why is the proposition important? Is it clear?
• What have you read recently?
• Who’s in favor? Who’s opposed?
• Where should I get information? Is recency important?
• What issues are important?
o Specific Argument research – used after you have become familiar with the issues in the proposition
 Looking for specific evidence to support the arguments that make up the issues

Front 28

--involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 2)

Back 28

– Compiling the Bibliography
o Need to find the best sources of evidence on the issues and arguments
 Know Your Library!!!
o Searching Indexes Manually
 Use indexes to develop a list of sources for evidence
• You will need to discover search terms
o Books – provide a thorough treatment of topic, place it in historical context
 May not contain most recent information
 Look in:
• Minerva – UofL has no card catalog
• Books in Print – included in library database
• Cumulative Book Index
o Periodicals (Journals and Magazines)
 Provide current information and perspectives on a topic
• Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature
• Lexis-Nexis

Front 29

--involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 2)

Back 29

o Newspapers
 Provide very recent information or detailed contemporary commentary
• Most newspapers provide their own index
• Editorials on File
o Almanacs and Fact Books
 Good for finding facts, dates, specific statistics
• Statistical Abstract of the U.S. – best source of statistics
• World Almanac – includes sections on history and present world conditions
• Facts on File – encyclopedia of current events
o Government Documents
 Government publishes books, pamphlets, hearings and congressional proceedings
• Excellent source for expert testimony
o Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications

Front 30

--involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 2)

Back 30

o Essays
 Usually in edited collections
 Can be difficult to locate
• Essay and General Literature Index
o Bibliographies
 Compiled on a variety of subjects
 Ask reference librarian for help
• Bibliography Index
o Searching Indexes with a Computer
 Do not rely solely on articles that are published in their full text in the index
 Challenge can be finding the right key- words

Front 31

involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 3)

Back 31

Reading for Evidence
o Finding the right sources does not guarantee finding the right evidence
 Must read with a clear and precise purpose in mind to make your reading profitable
• Know what you are looking for
• Know what stage of research you are at
 Early stages – skim to determine the usefulness of a source
• Reading for ideas as well as evidence
 Next, read in depth to gather as much evidence and as many relevant ideas as possible
• Should be recording most information at this time
o Better to have too much than not enough
 Later stages – looking for specific evidence to support specific ideas
• Looking for quality of evidence now, rather than quantity

Front 32

involves a systematic process (4 stages; stage 4)

Back 32

Recording Evidence
o There’s no foolproof plan to make sure you get the right evidence
 It’s a subjective judgment of the individual
 It’s dependent on the nature of the topic
 It’s dependent on the type of evidence the researcher is looking for at the moment
o 4 guidelines for helping to record evidence
 Rule 1 – Record single ideas to make retrieval easier
• Impossible to file an evidence card if it contains more than one idea
o Quotations with multiple ideas should be broken up
 Rule 2 – Recorded evidence should consist of conclusions, as well as reasons for that led to that conclusion
• Conclusions without reasons/evidence provides no basis for our arguments
 Rule 3 – Record evidence in its exact form. Do not take it out of context!
• You must remain true to the meaning intended by original source
• Edit or paraphrase later, after recording evidence exactly as it appears
 Rule 4 – Record evidence in a length appropriate to its use
• Lengthy quotations may need to be broken up into smaller, more specific quotes

Front 33

Ethical use of data

Back 33

 Concerned with fairness and accuracy
 Inquiry/Advocacy process makes distorted data unlikely
 Opponents often check sources
 Errors in evidence and premises can lead to faulty conclusions and inappropriate solutions

Front 34

Testing data

Back 34

o Bombarded with facts, opinions and premises each day
• Must be able to measure accuracy and acceptability
o Can subject data to tests
• Will help you in your selection of premises and evidence for arguments/papers
• Also helps you examine/refute data offered by others

Front 35

Premises can be tested:

Back 35

• Philosophically – concerned with reasons people use to support their beliefs
 Must consider the basis of our beliefs when making judgment about its soundness
 Can test premises in terms of their effect on the real world
• Pragmatically – sometimes premise must be qualified
 Can you show that the premise does not constitute an ultimate good in a given situation
• Killing is bad (premise), except in war or by the state (specific situations)
• Consensually - Must consider the extent and sources of support for premise
 Just because a large number of people accept a premise does not make it true
 However, if a premise is widely shared, it can be useful as data
• Shows strength and pervasiveness of premise

Front 36

General Tests

Back 36

3 tests available for all forms of data whether premises or evidence

Front 37

internal consistency

Back 37

Are the data consistent with other data from the same source?
 Inconsistencies in or among premises, opinions or facts should raise concern over the credibility of the source
 Lawyers listen carefully to witness testimony to find discrepancies

Front 38

external consistency

Back 38

Are the data consistent with other data from unrelated sources?
 Data must be examined in light of other known data from other sources
 Inconsistencies do not automatically invalidate data
 Must search deeper to see which source is most credible
 If two independent sources provide us with the same data, the credibility of that data is more firmly established

Front 39

relevancy

Back 39

Do the data support the conclusion they are asserted to support?
 Data can be credible and still not be sufficient basis for argument
 May be tangential to the conclusion
 Ask: Does this data really support this conclusion?
 If not, it is irrelevant

Front 40

specific tests for premises

Back 40

• People can and do change their values and perceptions; Can’t write them off as unable to be tested further; Just because our values and perceptions are deeply held and emotional, doesn’t mean premises can’t be tested
• Remember!!! Tests do not prove the truth of a given perception or value, they only provide us with signs of the strength and pervasiveness of premises

Front 41

clear defination

Back 41

Are the terms used in the premise clearly defined?
 Premises can be highly abstract in their language (“sanctity of life,” “patriotism”)
 Confuses the issue, can be used by both sides
 Must precisely define and apply the value or perception

Front 42

Appropriate Justification

Back 42

– Is an appropriate rationale provided to justify the judgment expressed?
 What is the reason we adopted a value or perceptual premise
 Family? Religion?
 Premises based on reasons are more likely to be true than those based on a whim or gut reaction

Front 43

Results in good

Back 43

Does accepting the premise result in good?
 Apply premise to specific instances to see if it results in good
 Should the government withhold information it deems dangerous to the public, or does the public have a right to know and act accordingly?

Front 44

Wide acceptance

Back 44

Is the premise widely accepted?
 Empirical question – answered by public opinion polls
 Just because a premise is widely accepted, does not mean it will apply or be supported in a particular situation

Front 45

Expert support

Back 45

Do experts in the subject support the premise?
 We assume experts have spent considerable time investigating subject, are in a better position to judge adequacy of premise

Front 46

Specific Tests for Evidence
--recency

Back 46

Is the statement of evidence based on recent observations of the real situation?
 Is it recent enough that no important facts have changed?
 Some fields of information change very quickly
 Be aware of new statements of old facts
 Current books may base conclusions on old sources

Front 47

Specific Tests for Evidence
--source identification

Back 47

Is the source of the evidence identifiable?
 All evidence should be traceable to a specific source
 Important in judging credibility
 Can never fully trust unnamed sources

Front 48

Specific Tests for Evidence
--source ability

Back 48

Is the source of the evidence able to report/interpret the situation accurately
 Must consider source’s access to situation and expertness
 Physical proximity (geographical and chronological) – if source is getting information second – or third- hand, it is more likely to be distorted
 Must consider expertness
 Experience – source is qualified by experience, training or position to interpret situation
 Has worked in situation before
 Has had any specific training necessary to interpret situation
 Position – access to information denied most people

Front 49

Specific Tests for Evidence
--source willingness

Back 49

Is the source of the evidence willing to report/interpret situation fairly?
 Self-interest – may prejudice evidence
 Does not automatically negate evidence, but must look for corroboration
 Includes interests of source’s employer
 May restrain a person from telling the truth
 Writing style – may sacrifice accuracy for what’s interesting
• Colorful language may not be most accurate
• Especially true of popular periodicals where simplicity and interest lead to overgeneralization

Front 50

Tests for Statistical Evidence
--Adequate sampling

Back 50

are statistics based on adequate sampling techniques?
 Statistics are not true counts but projections based on samples
• Must be large enough sample
• Must represent the larger whole
• Best sources provide explanation and justification for numbers