Xem mẫu
- Lecture 15.
Argumentative written
message: Assessing
completeness of
argumentation.
1. Standard matters in dispute
2. Order and coherence
3. Onus of proof
1
The argumentation is complete if it is
supported by all relevant arguments
2
Standard matters in dispute
1. Is there a problem?
2. Are the problems serious?
3. Are the problems caused by
- the current policy?
4. Is the policy proposal feasible?
5. Is the policy proposal
effective?
6. Do the advantages of the policy
proposal balance its
disadvantages?
3
Standard Matters in Dispute can be
used for ANY kind of proposal.
For your proposal to be valid you
must answer all these questions in
the affirmative and give at least one
argument for each answer.
Exception: only if the answer to one
of the questions is obvious and the
author decides not to give any
arguments.
4
1. Is there a problem?
- As a policy proposal is to change
something and people are not
prepared to invest unless it is really
necessary, the author has to prove
that the problem really exists.
5
2. Are the problems serious?
The fact that the problem exists is not
enough: minor problems do not
require measures.
Compare: 10 traffic offences a year or
thousands.
6
3. Are the problems caused by the
current policy?
Find out who is to blame.
Example (problems caused by current policy or not?)
After a long discussion the maximum speed
limit in the Netherlands was raised from 100 to
120 km an hour a few years ago. Those in favour
of a higher speed limit said that this was the only
way to solve the problem of large-scale speeding
offences. But were these offences really caused
- by the limit at that time? Perhaps the problem
was caused by other features of the then policy,
e.g. the inadequacy of speeding checks. In that
case the then policy (limit of 100 km a hour) was
not the cause of the problem. And the problem
could have been solved by adjusting the policy,
e.g. by increasing the speeding checks.
7
Example (cause of the problems)
Someone discovers that in a particular
town there is not one woman working at top
management level. That is why he proposes
preferential treatment of women in application
procedures. In order to defend his proposal he
must argue that the problem (no women at top
management level) is caused by the current
policy (the present application procedure). In
other words: so far women have had insufficient/
fewer opportunities to be employed than men.
Opponents of proposal may object that not
application procedures but women themselves
are ‘to blame’. Women simply do not have
executive abilities, or are not ambitious enough.
They will say that the cause is not the current
policy, but women themselves.
8
4. Is the policy proposal feasible?
- Example (feasibility)
The problem of the lack of prison cells may be
solved by building new prisons, but if there is no
money, it is no more than a theoretical possibility.
9
5. Is the policy proposal effective?
The smoking ban in public building
might solve the problem of
inconvenience to non-smokers, but if
nobody observes it, the proposal is
not effective.
10
6. Do the advantages of the policy
proposal balance its disadvantages?
Example (advantages/ disadvantages)
A pregnant woman suffering from headaches may
be advised to use medicines to banish the
headaches. But if the medicines also cause an
abortion, it is obviously not such a good idea.
The problem, the headaches, has been solved,
but a much more serious problem has been
created. The disadvantages outweigh the
advantages.
11
- Missed Advantage is an advantage that
is brought by a new policy and which the
old policy does not have.
Example (missed advantage)
It is possible to type a report on typewriter, but
also on a word processor. A typewriter also
serves your purpose, but it is more laborious
than a word processor. The missed advantage of
the word processor is an extra problem of the
present policy: using the typewriter.
12
Example (incomplete argumentation)
Someone lists three problems of the current
system of donor donation: there are not enough
donors; there is a lot of uncertainty among
doctors and the surviving relatives often have to
make a decision about donation on behalf of the
decreased. Then he argues that his proposal is
effective, because it will result in more donors. He
does not mention whether the other two problems
will be solved as well.
13
The Order:
Each question presupposes that you
- answered the previous question in
affirmative. => A
Presupposition order
14
Coherence
All the questions should refer to the same
problem
Example (incomplete argumentation)
Someone considers it a problem that
close to the railway station many
bicycles are stolen. He proposes to
place cycle stands. According to him
his plan is effective because ‘if
everyone puts his bicycle in the
stand, it will look much tidier’.
15
Onus of proof
Anyone who wants to change a situation
must give arguments for this change =
The onus of proof falls on the person
making the proposal.
16
- Example (onus of the proof)
Someone proposes to replace the Dutch
monarchy by a republic. The onus of the
proof lies with him. The person
criticizing this proposal need not prove
that abolishing the monarchy is not
feasible or not effective etc. All he needs
to do is cast doubt on its feasibility and
effectiveness. Of course it is not enough
when he merely says: “I doubt the
feasibility of the proposal”. He must
explain his doubts.
17
nguon tai.lieu . vn
