One of the things that we have been focusing on this year is trying to make arguments where the evidence presented is both relevant (meaning it is logically related to the matter, that it helps prove what it claims to be trying to prove) and sufficient (that there is enough evidence to convince a smart, reader that the author is correct).
Example of How Relevance Can Be Used to Construct and Evaluate Arguments:
Two young children are arguing on the playground over whose turn it is to go down the slide. One says, "Well, my dad can beat up your dad." This evidence is irrelevant to the matter at hand - what does the physical strength of their respective fathers have to do with anything? C'mon, kids, craft better arguments.
Then the other kid says, "Well, you're a doo-doo head!" This is another common logical fallacy. Rather than address why their opponent's argument is incorrect, this child has chosen to attack the character of the opponent. Whether the boy is or is not a "doo-doo head" is not relevant to whose turn it is.
After some more of this counterproductive wrangling, the kids realize that they will never negotiate a settlement this way, and turn towards the matter at hand. The first kid, the one with the really strong dad, states, "I was here first." This is a good argument, since, generally speaking, one's place in an informal line is determined by one's arrival at the end of that line. Furthermore, it is a good argument because it is a relevant argument - it is logically connected to the matter at hand, and, without any other information, would convince a dispassionate observer that the first boy (we'll call him Firstie) does deserve to precede the other boy in line.
However, the second boy also has relevant evidence to present. "I called it first! You heard me!" he protests. This is relevant, too. In certain cases, a right to a certain position or possession can be secured by "calling it," stating publicly and clearly that one wishes that position or use of a shared community object. The second boy (we'll call him Call-y) has an argument. Whose evidence is more persuasive?
Firstie wishes to question this argument. "You can't call the slide. It's always who gets there first. You only can call it if we're talking about the swings, or the front seat, or playing with a toy." Firstie's right, here, children use "calling it" only in cases where "a turn" would take so long that it would occupy the entire available time. Kids cannot "take turns" in the front seat on a single trip, so one kid must "call it," announcing his or her attention to occupy a given physical location. Remembering to "call it" is taken as an indication that that person wants the prize more. It's a pretty good system, but it's not applicable here. Going down a slide takes only a few seconds, so it's silly to "call it"; everybody can have multiple turns in a given recess period. Lining up to wait in the order you arrived is customary in this case.
Call-y does not want to admit that his evidence was not sufficient to overcome his opponent's line of reasoning, so he simply takes his place behind Firstie, his face openly displaying rancor over the matter. Another argument solved by presenting and evaluating arguments.
So, here's an optional reading on this subject. It's a baseball article about how good a signing Ryan Dempster was for the Red Sox. Notice how the author uses relevant evidence to try and prove his position about Dempster.
No comments:
Post a Comment