Definitions
Four criteria of Responsible Reasoning
Four Aims of Argument
Argument Essentials
100

"What an argument attempts to prove"

Claim (AKA thesis)

 

100

A responsible reasoner should respect and listen to this group and treat this group as their audience.

The opposition

100

In addition to “Inquiring” and “Convincing,” the list also includes “Persuading” and “Mediating.”

The Aims of Argument

100

When someone changes their opinion after hearing good evidence, they are demonstrating this skill—AKA the opposite of being stubborn for free

Open-mindedness

200

The common usage focuses on “empty promises and demagoguery common in political speeches.”

“Common negative meaning” of rhetoric (AKA, not ours) (4)

200

A writer who develops opinions “from knowledge” and supports them with “reliable and current evidence” is considered this.

Well-informed

200

When an individual is arguing “to influence not just thinking but also behavior,” they are actually doing this

Arguing to Persuade

200

A “sentence telling why the claim should be accepted as true.

Reason

300

The art of argument as responsible reasoning. The study of this art develops self-conscious awareness of principles and practices of responsible reasoning and effective arguing.

Classical, and therefore our definition of “rhetoric”

300

An individual ready to question their own beliefs and willing “to change their mind when good reasons to do so are presented” is considered this.

Self-Critical and Open to Constructive Criticism

300

When two sides cannot reach an agreement, and “agreeing to disagree” is not a practical solution, then we need to use this strategy.

Arguing to Mediate

300

When a person makes a claim but provides zero reasoning, zero evidence, and zero logic, they’ve provided this type of argument—popular on Twitter.

An unsupported claim.

400

“Defending not the first position you take, but the best position, determined through open-minded inquiry. Providing reasons for holding that position that can earn the respect of an [opposing] audience.”

Responsible Reasoning

400

In addition to knowing the current facts about their argument, responsible reasoners should also know this.

The history/context of their argument

400

The name the ancient Greeks used for the practice we call arguing to inquire, or “dialogue.”

Dialectic

400

When two people debate but spend the whole time attacking each other instead of the actual issue, they’re committing this classic argumentative failure—basically the academic version of “you started it.”

Ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument).

500

“[U]sing reasoning to determine the best position on an issue.”

Arguing to Inquire (13)

500

According to the authors, if we want to reach others, this “is the biggest challenge of argument.

Adapting to the audience

500

When deciding which “Aims of Argument” approach is necessary, an individual should consider several things. Name two.

  • Purpose, Audience, Situation, Method (15, Concept Close-up Box)

  • Why this order for the Aims of Argument?

Aims versus “ends”


500

This term describes using facts, logic, and clear reasoning to support a point instead of vibes, assumptions, and “trust me bro.”

Critical thinking.

M
e
n
u