Arguments make up the conversation exercise in the human environment. Different dialogues head towards different directions, based on the strength and reliability of the arguments. Also, different parties engage in proper listening and comprehension during dialogues, and this enhances the overall reasoning based on the premises. Arguments can be either good or unsatisfactory. The extent to which the premises meet the conclusions determines the acceptability and cogency of the arguments. In cases where there are no premises, it becomes difficult to establish the reliability of the information passed through the argument in question. Markedly a good argument should incorporate well defined and integrated premises that support the conclusion of the issue in question. A dialogue is said to be effective and reliable if it is made up of cogent arguments. In this case, the arguments have to meet the ARG requirements (Govier, 2013). ARG stands for Acceptability of the argument, Relationship of the premises with the conclusion, and if the whole argument is Good enough.
The arguments in the dialogues are passed through these three factors to establish their cogency. In case they meet these requirements, they are rendered reliable, and as such, they can easily pass the required information to the other parties. Another element that affects the arguments in dialogues is whether the responses are in line with the challenge arguments. The challenge of argument refers to the ability to base the responses on the premises from the sender of the information. Here, the initial argument is taken into consideration during the entire conversation, and hence it promotes rationalism. In cases where the responses do not feature the initial premises, the responses fail to meet the challenge of argument. On the other hand, if the responses are based on the premises, they are said to be in line with the challenge of argument (Govier, 2013). Proper arguments embrace the challenge of argument. Given this information, this report seeks to address three different dialogues on whether they meet the ARG factors or not. It further establishes whether they meet the challenge of argument or not and ways in which they would be altered to meet these two aspects.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Jim’s argument is well formulated as it has both the premises and the conclusions. The premises are acceptable as they depict the contributions of neutrality in the mediation exercise. The premises are directly related to the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is: Neutrality is probably the essential quality that a mediator should have (Govier, 2013). The premises highlight the effects of lack of neutrality on the parties in question, and they are in support of the conclusion. Considering the general arguments of the premises, they are considered viable as they offer the best ground to show the importance of neutrality. They depict a solid ground to conclude as the USA is invalid in enhancing mediation in the two countries. According to Jim, mediation means the middle ground to make the two parties feel equal and valued in the same way. Lack of neutrality enhances biasness, and this does not result in proper mediation. Ultimately, the parties will have greater animosity towards each other based on the support that they receive from the mediating parties like the USA.
However, Roger’s response lacks premises to support his conclusion. In this case, he should have questioned Jim on the validity of his claim about neutrality. The fact that it lacks premises means that it does not meet the ARG requirements. The initial element of ARG entails the acceptability. There are no rounds to accept this argument as Roger only jumps into a conclusion about his perception of the issue of neutrality. He does not offer an argument to disapprove Jim’s premises. Besides, he does not take time to establish and understand the grounds under which Jim argues. The impatience drives him to make an incomplete argument. A complete argument is made up of premises and conclusions. Also, a cogent argument is made up of premises that directly link to the conclusions. Markedly, this implies that through the premises, one can notice a proper argument.
Furthermore, it fails to meet the challenge of argument. Rather than following the direction of the premises, Roger ignores Jim’s argument and jumps to his conclusion. He does not approve or disapprove of these premises, and as a result, his statement is not cogent. In the quest to meet cogency, it is crucial to satisfy the ARG requirements. Since he disagreed with Jim’s arguments, he should have come up with a premise related to these premises and then show the unacceptability of these claims. He would then develop a counterargument based on the stated premises. In this case, the argument will include the premises and conclusion. Since the premises are related to the conclusion, they will have met the R requirements. Based on the strength and structure of the argument, they will result in a strong and countering conclusion. Through this, they will have met the “good enough” requirement (Govier, 2013). The fact that he never highlighted the premises means that either he never understood them or never viewed them as necessary. Thus, his argument is baseless.
The second dialogue is made up of Steve and Peter, and it has two parts. Steve’s initial argument only has a conclusion. Based on his statement, he implies that hypnosis is wrong, but he does not support claims to validate his arguments. It does not offer solid ground under which the conclusion has been reached as it lacks premises. The first requirement entails the acceptance of the premises. In this case, there are no premises, and as such, this argument does not meet the requirement. On the second aspect, the relationship between the premises with the conclusion, the argument fails to meet it as it lacks premises. The failure to meet the second requirement means that it fails to meet the final ARG requirement. Steve should have developed premises to support the conclusion. The premises should be related to his disregard for hypnosis. With this, Steve would easily meet the ARG requirements based on their solid evidence and the relationship of these premises with the conclusion. Markedly, this would provide a ground for a response from Peter. Peter’s first argument does not meet the ARG requirements. The failure is a result of the lack of ground to develop a counterargument (Govier, 2013). The rectification of Steve’s initial argument will create a ground to develop a solid argument that is not only acceptable but also has premises that can be directly linked with his conclusions.
The second part of Steve’s argument meets the ARG requirements. In this case, he developed the ground for his argument through relevant premises. The premises are acceptable, and they are directly connected to the conclusion. Based on this connection, they are considered to be good enough as they pass a relevant point. Similarly, Peter’s second argument is more developed than the initial one. His two premises depict the evidence of the positivity of hypnosis. These premises are acceptable as they depict the solid evidence of his experiences. Also, they are related to the conclusion, and thus it meets the relationship requirement. Markedly the raised argument is good enough as its premises connect with the conclusion.
The whole argument meets the challenge of argument. Both Peter and Steve take into consideration each other’s arguments. The preceding arguments are based on the already created premises and evidence to approve or disapprove the premises. In the first dialogue, even though the conversation lacks the required premises. The communication depicts a chain. Peter uses Steve’s conclusion to press for further information. He does not ignore that argument, and hence, before he comes up with his version of the argument about the hypnosis, he gives Steve time to develop and explain the basis of his argument. The sequence prompts Steve to offer a well-developed basis of his argument on hypnosis. He supports his initial conclusion with related premises. Here, Peter gets the grounds to argue his case. Even though he holds a different opinion about hypnosis, he does not ignore Steve’s arguments as he acknowledges them before raising his own. He then supports his claims through his experience in the hypnosis and why he thinks that it is helpful. Markedly, this leaves room to change the perceptions about the whole issue. Since he is talking from personal experience, his argument depicts rationality. Based on Peter’s experiences, Steve may positively view the element of hypnosis.
Nicholas’ argument meets the acceptance requirement. It is well-developed and aims at convincing the listener. It has the conclusion and clauses in its structure. The premises support the conclusion, and as such, this meets that relationship clause. Also, based on the evidence and development of the conclusion, this argument is good enough. The major conclusion of his argument is that helmets are beneficial in society. His conclusion is supported by the statistics in the Canadian Institute of Health Information. Here, the reduction of the number of injuries and hospitalization over cycling-related issues has declined greatly (Govier, 2013). The fact that the reductions coincide with the period that the helmets were advocated for depicts their effectiveness. Markedly, these premises are in line with the conclusions.
On the other hand, Katlyn holds a contrary opinion about the effects of the helmets. Her argument also meets the ARG requirements. Her arguments are acceptable as they offer ground for the conclusions. The premises highlight the fact that there may be other reasons for the deviation. Even though she holds a contrary opinion, she does not just jump into conclusion. She develops and supports her conclusion based on her premises. The relationship and good enough elements are met by these aspects. She argues that the changes are orchestrated by other factors in the system as opposed to Nicholas’ implication that the helmets are solely responsible for the positive change in society. In this case, there is room for Nicholas to change his mind about his assumptions on the effects of the helmets in the society. The possibility is attributed to the orderliness and sequence of the conversation, and as such, they can easily reason with each other about the subject in question.
The conversation meets the challenge of argument. Katlyn does not present her arguments independently. She first acknowledges Nicholas' point of view within her argument, after which she raises her point about the subject. Also, her arguments are based on the premises developed by Nicholas. In this case, she bases her argument on the statistics and the conclusions on the effects of Helmets. By first agreeing with him, she creates the ground to base her argument. She acknowledges the change but questions the factors that have promoted that change. The line of conversation enhances the willingness to embark on further thought and research about the initial conclusions (Govier, 2013). The validity of the arguments is established in this case. Ultimately, this leads to proper reasoning and positive arguments that lead to reliable conclusions.
In conclusion, the ability of the recipients of the information to meet and understand the claims raised in the arguments determines the reliability of the arguments. In cases where the arguments meet the ARG and the challenge of argument, the dialogues tend to flow reasonably and as such, they offer room for reasoning. Good arguments call for proper reasoning in the quest to understand the premises clearly. Ultimately, the counter-arguments are based on the premises, and hence, this depicts increased comprehension of the underlying factors. In a nutshell, proper arguments that meet ARG requirements and the argument challenge can be arrived through acknowledging and positively disagreeing with the initial claims.
Reference
Govier, T. (2013). A Practical Study of Argument, Enhanced Edition . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
