apa

quilan

working_in_groups_5e_ch11.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >apa

ee eBook Collection

c h a p t e r11Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

chapter outline Critical Thinking and Argumentation

Arguments and Argumentation • The Value of Argumentation in Groups • Argumentativeness

Structuring Arguments Claim, Evidence, and Warrant • Backing, Reservation, and Qualifier • Applying the Toulmin Model

Supporting Arguments Types of Evidence • Tests of Evidence

Presenting Arguments State Your Claim • Support Your Claim • Provide Reasons • Summarize Your Argument

Refuting Arguments Listen to the Argument • State the Opposing Claim • Preview Your Objections • Assess the Evidence • Assess the Reasoning • Summarize Your Refutation

Adapting to Argumentation Styles Gender Differences • Cultural Differences • Argumentation and Emotional Intelligence

study questions � How do critical thinking and argumentation differ from criticism

and arguing?

� What are the six components of an effective argument?

� What are the characteristics of valid evidence?

� How do you present a clear, valid, and persuasive argument?

� How can you demonstrate that an argument is invalid?

� How should you demonstrate to differences in argumentation styles?

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies, Fifth Edition, by Isa N. Engleberg and Dianna R. Wynn. Published by Allyn & Bacon. Copyright © 2010 by Pearson Education, Inc.joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

268 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

Critical Thinking and Argumentation Do you like being criticized? Do you enjoy arguing? Our guess is that most people would answer no to both questions. So why in the world do we include a chapter titled “Critical Thinking and Argumentation”? Is it because effective group members learn to endure criticism and arguments for the sake of the group’s goal? Of course not. Critical thinking is not about criticizing and argumentation is not about fighting. After many years of teaching, coaching, and consulting, we have learned that effec- tive group members excel as critical thinkers and know how to engage in construc- tive argumentation.

Critical thinking is the kind of thinking you use when you analyze what you read, see, or hear in order to arrive at a justified conclusion or decision. Critical thinking is a conscious process that always results in an outcome—a personal conclusion or opin- ion as well as group decisions and actions. It also results in productive argumenta- tion among group members seeking to achieve a common goal.

Group communication scholars have no doubts about the role of skilled argumen- tation in effective group decision making.1 Critical thinking and effective argumen- tation help group members develop, present, and defend their own viewpoints as well as objectively listen to and analyze the views of others. In a review of research on critical thinking in groups, D. Christopher Kayes concludes that critical thinking is more important than ever for groups dealing with a complex and changing world as they coordinate a diverse set of goals, roles, and intellectual challenges.2

Arguments and Argumentation

Many people think an argument is a hostile confrontation between two or more com- batants. In communication studies, an argument is something much less threatening. An argument is a claim supported by evidence and reasons for accepting it. An argu- ment is more than an opinion, such as “I think the Latino Heritage Club should be given more funds next year.” An argument is an idea or opinion supported by evi- dence and reasoning: “The Latino Heritage Club should be given more funds next year because it has doubled in size and cannot provide the same number or quality of programs without more funds.” When viewed this way, an argument does not nec- essarily involve conflict or disagreement. Argumentation, then, is the way in which group members use critical thinking to advocate proposals, examine competing ideas, and influence one another.

Unlike when two people argue, groups engage in unique kinds of argumentation. For example, once a group makes a decision based on listening to and analyzing argu- ments from its members, the argument is over. A decision signals the end of argu- mentation and the beginning of implementation or the discussion of a new issue. In addition, when an entire group argues—rather than only two people—there are more questions and challenges, which force “the group’s argument into more complex realms of reasoning, challenging members to reevaluate” arguments “in light of new evidence.”3

Effective arguers balance their personal desire to win an argument with the group’s need to solve a problem or make a decision. As communication scholars Josina Makau and Debian Marty put it, argumentation in groups should be cooper- ative rather than competitive. They define cooperative argumentation as “a process of reasoned interaction . . . intended to help participants and audiences make the best assessments or the best decisions in any given situation.”4 Cooperative arguers focus on the group’s shared goal of solving a problem or making the best decision.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

At Gorgias College, the Student Finance Board is responsible for distributing funds to campus clubs and organizations. Board members include the presi- dent, vice president, and treasurer of student govern- ment, four members from active student groups, two faculty members, and the college’s comptroller. The director of student activities chairs the meeting but has no voting power. However, he does provide data and background information about how previous boards made these decisions.

The board meets throughout the academic year to consider funding requests. Clubs usually request more money than is available. Board members read fund- ing requests and listen to presentations by club mem- bers who argue that their organization should receive the funding they requested. Then, board members share their opinions and, in many cases, argue for or against proposed funding levels for particular orga- nizations. After a period of discussion and debate, the group makes its final decision—even though it knows that some clubs and advisors will argue that the deci- sion was unfair or unjust.

This year, the student members on the Student Finance Board come from the Philosophy Club, the Latino Heritage Club, the Intramural Sports Council, and the Drama Society. The group has $500,000 to dis- tribute and requests for $875,000. Clearly, many groups will receive less than they requested.

Patrice, president of the student government, pro- poses that the board should begin with a blank slate. That is, they won’t guarantee clubs the same budgets received in past years. Instead, they should use four criteria to decide how much each club should get: (1) the number of members, (2) the quality of their writ- ten funding request, (3) the value of their activities to students and others, and (4) their cost-effectiveness.

Several board members respond immediately. Wendell, a faculty member who is also the Nursing Club advisor, objects by saying, “Many clubs depend on getting what they’ve had in the past. Their num- bers, as well as the quality and quantity of their activ- ities, have not changed—so why should their funding change?”

Patrice responds, “Well, their funding may not change at all. It might even go up.” Charlie, a member of the Philosophy Club, answers, “But that doesn’t respond to Wen- dell’s argument. For example, the Debating Society doesn’t have many members, but their activities boost the college’s reputation. So should we give them less?”

“The answer to your question, Charlie, is yes,” says Mark, a member of the Intramural Sports Council. “Thirty times as many students participate in intra- murals and we get only ten times as much as the debate team.” Charlie quickly adds, “And the inter- collegiate sports teams get more money than all the other clubs combined. Let’s look at the quality of each program, its value to the college, and how much it costs. Remember when college Republicans invited Rush Limbaugh to speak on campus? Remember how much that cost?” The director of college activities gently interrupts and suggests that the group pause and listen to a couple of stories about how previous boards dealt with such problems in the past. Patrice— who’s been silent as long as she can stand—interrupts the director: “The past is the problem. Some groups got more than they deserved and others got much less than they needed to survive.”

Caesar, from the Latin Heritage Club, sighs audi- bly and shakes his head. “Look, that’s fine for clubs that have been around for years. But the Latin Her- itage Club is new. We don’t have many members right now—but we will if we have the funds to get the word out to potential members. We don’t have a track record—but we will if we have the funds to sponsor activities. We’re not even sure we wrote the funding proposal correctly. As I see it, Patrice’s criteria will only make sure we get nothing.” The Drama Society member nods her head, but adds, “And then there are the thousands of people who come to our theatre pro- ductions—how do you count them?”

Finally the college’s comptroller calls for order. “I’m appointed to this board by the college to make sure that our decisions are justifiable and legal. Let’s stop bickering about the clubs we do and don’t

case study Slicing the Pie

269

(continued)

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Promotes Understanding. Group members use argumentation to express various viewpoints in various ways. Some argue logically; others, emotionally. Some argue on behalf of what’s best for the group; others argue for personal gain. For example, as a member of the Stu-

dent Finance Board, Charlie argues in favor of funding the Philosophy Club because he is a club member. A faculty member may support the Philosophy Club request because it visibly highlights the academic goals of the humanities division. Both members sup- port the same position but for different reasons. Understanding how other group mem- bers reason and feel about issues can help you adapt your arguments.

Promotes Critical Thinking. Effective argumentation helps group members ana- lyze issues and critically examine ideas. When you present your position on an issue, another member may challenge your claims and ask you to justify your position. Your response requires skilled argumentation supported by strong evidence and sound reasoning. The process of argumentation may even cause you to rethink your own positions and beliefs. Argumentation in groups goes hand-in-hand with critical thinking.

Avoids Groupthink. As Chapter 9, Conflict and Cohesion in Groups, notes, group- think occurs when, because of efforts to discourage conflict and maintain cohesion, a group makes flawed decisions. On the other hand, “unlike groups that engage in

270 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

support. Instead, we need an orderly way of letting you make your arguments clearly and fairly. OK?”

When you finish reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions.

1 To what extent did the arguments in this case study reflect effective critical thinking?

2 Which of the arguments included a claim, evidence, and warrant?

3 What kinds of evidence did the board members use in their arguments?

4 What fallacies of argument, if any, did board members use?

5 How well did the board adapt to different argumentative styles?

They recognize that the group learns and knows more if there is an open exchange of ideas. Those who disagree are resources, not rivals. Although cooperative arguers want to win arguments, they do not want to do so at the expense of the group goal and member relationships.

The Value of Argumentation in Groups

Effective argumentation helps groups understand and analyze ideas, influence members, and make informed decisions. Thus, the quantity and quality of argumentation is a significant factor in deter- mining whether a group achieves its goal.

Argumentation in Groups

Promotes Understanding � � �

Promotes Critical Thinking � � �

Avoids Groupthink � � �

Improves Group Decision Making

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Structuring Arguments 271

groupthink, groups trained to employ cooperative argumentation are able to form constructive forms of cohesion.”5 Constructive and cooperative argumentation encourages the critical examination of opposing ideas without impairing group cohe- sion. Groups can avoid groupthink when members think critically, ask questions, offer reasons for their positions, and seek justifications from others.

Improves Group Decision Making. Argumentation helps group members exam- ine the consequences of a potential action before making a final decision. Errors in rea- soning are exposed, and weaknesses in evidence are uncovered. Argumentation can also improve group decision making because, unlike one-on-one argumentation, sev- eral members may work together to develop the same argument. In this “tag team” situation, like-minded members build on the arguments presented by others by pro- viding additional evidence or reasons to support a particular position. The result is a single comprehensive argument constructed cooperatively by a subgroup. Tag-team arguing also produces “perceptions of unity and support for the subgroup’s preferred option.”6 Although there is strong evidence that argumentation improves group deci- sion making,7 this conclusion relies on the assumption that group members know how to develop and use arguments effectively.

Argumentativeness

Chapter 3, Group Membership, introduces the concept of communication apprehen- sion to explain why some group members lack confidence in their ability to interact in a group. Similarly, we may also vary in how comfortable we feel arguing—a char- acteristic called argumentativeness, or the willingness to argue controversial issues with others.8 Argumentativeness is constructive when it does not promote aggres- sion and hostility. The responsible argumentative member focuses on issues and avoids personal attacks.

At the end of this chapter is a self-test called the Argumentativeness Scale that will help identify your level of argumentativeness. You might want to complete the ques- tionnaire and calculate your results before continuing with this chapter.

A group member ’s level of argumentativeness provides some insight into how that member will approach a discussion. Group members with lower levels of argu- mentativeness generally avoid conflict. As a result, other group members may view them not only as nonconfrontational, but also as unskilled in argumentation and less influential in group decision making. Highly argumentative group members enjoy the intellectual challenge of a good argument. They defend their positions confidently and challenge the arguments of others with skill. Groups usually view their most argumentative members as skilled communicators with high credibility and influ- ence. Argumentative members often become group leaders. On the other hand, they are less likely to accept other members’ arguments and may become inflexible and overly talkative.

Argumentative members are influential in group decision making. In fact, argu- mentative group members create more arguments on both sides of a position.9 When the number of choices a group can consider expands, the group is less likely to reach a biased decision or succumb to groupthink.

Structuring Arguments Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher, believes that real-world arguments are less formal and more complex than those described in philosophy and logic textbooks. He

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

272 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

EVIDENCE CLAIM (All group members say they will work

hard on this project.)

(The group will do well on the class project.)

WARRANT (Hard work usually results in success.)

Figure 11.1 “Basic T” of the Toulmin Model

compares an argument to a living organism, with its own anatomical structure and specific physiological functions.10 The Toulmin Model of Argument provides a way of building strong arguments and refuting the arguments of others.

Before you can build or refute an argument, you need to understand the compo- nents of a complete argument. In his layout of an argument, Toulmin identifies six components: claim, evidence, warrant, backing, reservation, and qualifier.11 The first three are essential in all arguments; the second three help clarify the nature and power of an argument.

Claim, Evidence, and Warrant

The claim is the conclusion or position you advocate. Evidence describes the facts, statistics, opinions, examples, and other materials you use to support your claim. For example, the statement “My group will do well on our class project” is a claim. The evidence for this claim might be the fact that during the first meeting, all mem- bers of the group said that they would work hard on the project. Evidence answers a challenger ’s questions: “What makes you say that?” or “What do you have to go on?”

A warrant answers the question “How did you get there?”12 The definition of the word warrant may help you understand this concept. A warrant can mean “justifica- tion for an action or belief,” as in “Under the circumstances, the actions were war- ranted.”13 In argumentation, warrants explain how the evidence supports and proves a claim. For example, a warrant might state that when group members are willing to work hard, a successful outcome is usually the result.

Warrants authorize or confirm the validity of a conclusion and give you the right to make your claim. Here’s an example of an unwarranted argument: Girlfriend says to boyfriend, “You saw me walking to my car with your friend Dale, and you jumped to the conclusion that we were seeing each other behind your back. That inference is unwarranted!” In this argument, the evidence (she walked to her car with Dale) is insufficient to make the claim (she’s seeing Dale behind her boyfriend’s back) because the warrant is unreasonable (if a woman talks to a man, she must be dating him or having an affair with him).14

Figure 11.1 illustrates the relationship among these three components of the Toul- min Model. The argument in Figure 11.1 would sound like this: “All group members say they will work hard. Because hard work usually results in success, the group will do well on the class project.” The combined evidence, claim, and warrant make up the “basic T” of the Toulmin Model.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Warrants are the most difficult of Toulmin’s compo- nents to understand and appreciate because they may not be expressed aloud. Warrants give you permission to make a claim based on evidence. They change claims in significant ways. In the following two arguments, the evidence is the same. The claims, however, are quite dif- ferent because the warrants are different.1

Argument 1: The reserves of fossil fuels are limited and will be used up in a few generations. Satisfac- tory alternative sources of energy are not yet avail- able. Therefore, we must allow industries to continue using our fossil fuel reserves.

Argument 2: The reserves of fossil fuels are limited and will be used up in a few generations. Satisfac- tory alternative sources of energy are not yet avail- able. Therefore, we may allow industries to continue

using our fossil fuel reserves only if they accept their share of responsibility for developing alternative sources of energy.

Look at the way in which different warrants justify the claims in the two arguments:

Warrant for Argument 1: Because industry cannot function without fuel and society is dependent on industry, we must let industry go on doing what it has to do in order to keep society functioning.

Warrant for Argument 2: Because industry and soci- ety are jointly involved in a common venture, indus- try must adapt its activities to the broader needs of society.

1Example from Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (New York: Macmillan, 1979), p. 303.

Structuring Arguments 273

groups in balance . . . Use Warrants to Change Claims

Backing, Reservation, and Qualifier

Beyond the “basic T,” there are three additional components: backing, reservation, and qualifier. The backing provides support for the argument’s warrant. In the pre- ceding class project example, backing for the warrant might be the fact that the group that worked the hardest on the last assignment received the best grade. If you believe that members may doubt the validity of your evidence, make sure you have backing to support it.

Not all claims are true all the time. The reservation component of the Toulmin Model recognizes exceptions to an argument or indicates that a claim may not be true under certain circumstances. At the first meeting, group members said that they would work hard. If, however, some members do not attend the planning meetings, the group is less likely to do well. You now have reason to doubt your claim about group success.

The final component of the model is the qualifier. The qualifier states the degree to which the claim appears to be true. Qualifiers are usually words or phrases such as likely, possibly, certainly, unlikely, or probably. A claim with a qualifier might be “The group will probably do well on the class project.” Figure 11.2 on page 274 illustrates the entire structure of this argument.

Applying the Toulmin Model

The Toulmin Model lets you diagram and evaluate arguments. In most cases, you don’t need to state every component of the argument. However, understanding the model lets you know what questions to ask about your own and other members’ arguments. If someone only states an argument’s claim, you may ask for evidence to support that

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

274 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

EVIDENCE CLAIM (All group members say they will work

hard on this project.)

(The group will do well on the class project.)

WARRANT (Hard work usually results in success.)

BACKING (The group that

worked hardest last time received the best grade.)

QUALIFIER (“probably”)

RESERVATION (The group won’t

do well if members miss meetings.)

Figure 11.2 The Toulmin Model of an Argument

claim. If the warrant is questionable, you may ask for backing to support it. Recogniz- ing that situations may alter the certainty of your claim, you may ask for qualifiers that recognize exceptions. When you develop your own arguments, the Toulmin Model can help you test the strength of every component. When you are analyzing someone else’s argument, the model helps reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.

Supporting Arguments Arguments fall apart if the evidence used to support the claim and back the warrant is insufficient or flawed. All arguments gain strength when you research your posi- tion and use appropriate evidence to make your case.

Research is a systematic search or investigation designed to find useful and appro- priate evidence. Even if you already know something about the topic area, good research can make you look and sound even better. For example, you may know that Americans watch a lot of television; research lets you know that the average Ameri- can watches TV more than four hours a day.15

A researcher with a good research strategy becomes an effective investigator with a systematic plan for searching sources of information—in the same way a detective searches for clues. The information you need is out there; you just have to find it. You can search different kinds of libraries, do electronic and online research, and interview knowledgeable individuals. As you do your research, make sure you choose appro- priate types of evidence and test the validity of your evidence.

Types of Evidence

Toulmin lists evidence as an essential component of his model of an argument. Evi- dence takes many forms: (1) facts and opinions, (2) definitions and descriptions, (3) examples and illustrations, and (4) statistics.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Supporting Arguments 275

The Toulmin Model of an

Argument lets you

diagram and evaluate

arguments. It also helps

you know what questions

to ask about your own

and other members’

arguments. Do you

believe that group

members can reach a

unanimous decision about

an important issue if they

engage in effective

argumentation? Why or

why not?

Facts and Opinions. A fact is a verifiable observation, experience, or event, some- thing known to be true. An opinion is a personal conclusion regarding the meaning or implications of facts. Here is a fact: In 1876, Colonel Henry M. Robert used the British Parliament’s procedures and Thomas Jefferson’s code of congressional rules as a basis for Robert’s Rules of Order. Here are two contrasting opinions:

• Robert’s Rules of Order is outdated and makes a meeting more complicated than necessary.

• Robert’s Rules of Order is time tested and ensures fair and objective decision making.

Unlike opinions, facts can usually be proved true or false. Group members should not mistake their opinions for facts.

When used as evidence, opinions usually express an authority’s judgment or inter- pretation of facts. For example, “According to James C. McCroskey and Virginia Rich- mond, communication apprehension ‘may be the single most important factor in predicting communication behavior in a small group.’ ” Keep in mind that different experts may not reach the same conclusions. Look for a variety of opinions rather than relying on claims that represent only one perspective.

Definitions and Descriptions. A definition clarifies the meaning of a word, phrase, or concept. A definition can be as simple as explaining what you mean by a word or as complex as an encyclopedia entry. Here is an example:

According to Warren Bennis and Bruce Nanus, “There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. ‘To manage’ means ‘to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct.’ ‘Lead- ing’ is ‘influencing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion.’ ”16

During an initial meeting, a group should define key terms. For example, a group dealing with sexual harassment policies should gather several definitions of sexual

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Is the Source Identified and Credible? How credible are your information sources? Who are the author(s) and publisher? Are they reputable? For example, credible sources such as The Information Please Almanac and The New York Times Almanac have been in business for many years, and their continued success depends on their ability to collect and publish information that is accurate and up-to-date.

276 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

harassment. Groups negotiating legal contracts carefully define their terms before reaching agreement.

Descriptions are more detailed than definitions. Rather than clarifying the mean- ing of a word or concept, a description creates a mental image of a person, event, place, or object. Causes, effects, historical contexts, characteristics, and operations can all be included in a description. Here is a description of feelers, one of the Myers- Briggs personality types: “Feelers are people-oriented members who seek group har- mony. They want everyone to get along. Feelers will spend time and effort helping other members.”

Examples and Illustrations. An example refers to a specific case or instance. Exam- ples are usually brief. An illustration is a longer, extended example that can take up an entire paragraph or tell a lengthy story. Here’s a series of examples from Chapter 1: “Groups communicate in a variety of group settings and circumstances—at school and at work, with family members and with friends, and in highly diverse arenas ranging from sports and science to courtrooms and classrooms.” That same chapter opens with two illustrations—one about the 2008 Super Bowl champions; the other about Dr. Peter Agre, winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Statistics. Information presented in a numerical form is the basis for statistics. Sta- tistics take various forms, including averages, percentages, rates, rankings, and so on. For example, in this textbook, you have read that according to James McCroskey and Virginia Richmond, “about 20 percent of the general population experiences very high levels of communication apprehension.” You’ve also learned that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, “During the 1990s, the Hispanic population increased 58 per- cent, and the Asian population increased 48 percent.”

Many of us believe statistics, particularly when published by reputable sources. However, you should examine all statistical findings carefully. The source and form of a statistic can result in different interpretations of the same numbers. Misinterpret- ing statistical information can jeopardize a group’s effectiveness and success. For example, in 2005, the number of miles driven by Americans grew by just 1 percent, the smallest increase since the 1991 recession.17 Here are some interpretations of that statistic: (1) health-conscious Americans were walking more and driving less, (2) Americans concerned about the environmental effects of automobile exhaust decreased their driving, and (3) record-high gas prices encouraged people to cut down on optional trips and use mass transit. Expert analysts identify the third rea- son as the correct interpretation.

Tests of Evidence

Evaluate every piece of evidence before using it in an argument or sharing it with group members. Make sure your information is valid, that the ideas, opinions, and information you include are accurate, reasonable, and justified.18

Questions to Test Evidence

Is the Source Identified and Credible? � � �

Is the Source Unbiased? � � �

Is the Information Recent? � � �

Is the Information Consistent? � � �

Are the Statistics Valid?

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Documentation is the practice of citing the sources of evidence. All group members should document their evidence, including information from Internet sources and interviews, in writing and then orally in discus- sions. Documentation enhances your credibility and the validity of your arguments.

Unlike writers, you will rarely display footnotes during a discussion, unless perhaps a PowerPoint pre- sentation gives you that opportunity. Rather, you pro- vide an oral citation, a comment that includes enough information to let members find the original source you’re citing. It’s a good idea to provide the name of the person (or people) whose work you are using, say

a word or two about their credentials, and mention the source (e.g., publication, website, television program) and its date. For example, if you claim that the United States puts a greater proportion of its citizens in jail than any other country, you could say, “According to a 2008 report by the International Center for Prison Stud- ies in England, the United States has 2.3 million crimi- nals behind bars, more than any other nation. Even China, which has four times the population of the United States, is a distant second.”1

1 Adam Liptak, “Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’,” New York Times, April 23, 2008, p. A1.

Supporting Arguments 277

groups in balance . . . Document Sources of Evidence

Also evaluate newspapers and online news and information services. Their rep- utations, too, depend on their ability to publish accurate information. There are, however, big differences among sources. The sensational National Enquirer may be fun to read, but the New York Times is more likely to contain reliable information. Ask yourself if the source is a recognized expert, a firsthand observer, or a respected journalist.

Is the Source Unbiased? You can identify sources with a bias by asking two ques- tions: Do their opinions seem one-sided, self-serving, unreasonable, or unfair? Do they directly and significantly benefit by your agreeing with them? For years, tobacco companies publicly denied that cigarette smoking was harmful, even though their own research told them otherwise. Now we recognize that the tobacco companies’ pronouncements were biased and untrue. Even not-for-profit special-interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, pro-choice or pro-life groups, or the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) have biases. The information they publish may be true, but the conclusions they draw from that information may be skewed toward their own goals.

Is the Information Recent? Always note the date of the information you use as evi- dence. When was the information collected? When was it published? In this rapidly changing information age, your information can become old in a matter of hours. Books provide a wealth of background information and historical perspectives. For current events or scientific breakthroughs, use recent magazines, journals, newspa- per articles, or reliable Web sources.

Is the Information Consistent? Ensure that the information you include reports facts and findings similar to other information on the same subject. Does the informa- tion make sense based on what you know about the topic? For example, if most doc- tors and medical experts agree that penicillin will not cure a common viral cold, why believe an obscure source that recommends it as a treatment?

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Despite the enormous benefits of electronic research, there are significant disadvantages. William Miller, a former president of the Association of College and Research Libraries, notes, “Much of what purports to be serious information [on the Web] is simply junk— neither current, objective, nor trustworthy.1

The Internet does not cover all the possible sources of information. What you find can be difficult to test for validity. The most trustworthy websites include infor- mation from major newspapers and magazines, profes- sional associations, government agencies, libraries, institutions of higher education, legitimate media out- lets, and well-known experts. Unfortunately, Internet sources are often biased and deceptive. Sites that appear legitimate may be fronts for pornography, hate speech, and fraudulent advertising. Because no one can possibly screen everything on the Internet for accuracy, it can be difficult to separate reliable from unreliable sources. Here are four related questions to ask when you find and want to use an Internet source:

Criterion #1: Authority 1. Are the sponsor’s identity and purpose clear? 2. Are the author’s identity and qualifications

evident? 3. Can you verify the legitimacy of the page’s spon-

sor (e.g., a phone number or postal address to contact for more information)?

Criterion #2: Accuracy 1. Are the sources of information available so you

can verify their claims? 2. Has the sponsor provided links you can use to

verify claims? 3. Is statistical data well labeled and easy to read? 4. Is the information free of grammatical, spelling,

and typographical errors that could indicate a lack of quality control?

Criterion #3: Objectivity 1. Is it evident why the sponsor is providing the

information? 2. Is the sponsor’s point of view presented clearly

with well-supported arguments? 3. Does it account for opposing points of view?

Criterion #4: Currency 1. Is the material recent enough to be accurate and

relevant? 2. Are there any indications that the material is

revised and kept up-to-date? 3. Do you see statements indicating when data for

charts and graphs were gathered?

1Quoted from Chronicle of Higher Education, August 1, 1997, A44, in Ann Raimes, Keys for Writers, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), p. 73.

278 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

virtual groups Think Critically about the Internet

Are the Statistics Valid? Determining the validity of statistics generally requires answering three questions:

1. What is the source of the statistics? Knowing who or what organization col- lected and published the statistical information may alert you to biases. For example, when tobacco company studies found no relationship between cig- arette smoking and cancer rates, unbiased scientists greeted their results with great skepticism.

2. Are the statistics accurate? Researchers may generate statistics by surveying or observing people. Statistical research that includes too few people or sub- jects who are not representative of the studied population may be invalid. For example, one study examined the effects of diet on breast cancer by studying only men.19 Clearly, the exclusion of women from the study makes any results or conclusions suspect if applied to all people.

3. How are the statistics reported? The way in which the source reports the statis- tic can conceal or distort information. For example, if group members hear that customer complaints have increased 100 percent over the past year, they

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Presenting Arguments 279

1. State your claim

2. Support your claim

3. Provide reasons

4. Summarize your argument

Figure 11.3 Procedure for Presenting Arguments

may believe that they have a serious problem to address. Upon closer exam- ination of the statistic, though, they may discover that last year only two customers complained, and this year there were four complaints. The prob- lem no longer appears to be as serious.

Good statistics can be informative, dramatic, and convincing. Statistics can also mislead, distort, and confuse. Make sure your statistics are valid—that they are legit- imate, justified, and accurate—and that you explain them correctly.

Presenting Arguments If you want your ideas taken seriously by your group, you must present your argu- ments skillfully.20 Figure 11.3 shows a four-step process for presenting arguments.

In some cases, you may not need to include every step of the process when you present an argument. If the evidence is strong and clear, you don’t need to provide the warrant. If your argument is very brief, a summary may not be necessary. How- ever, you should be prepared to include all the steps if group members want further justification for your arguments.

State Your Claim

The first step in presenting an argument is to state your claim clearly. Chapter 10 identifies four types of discussion questions—fact, conjecture, value, and policy. Dis- cussion questions help groups focus on their goals. Claims for arguments fit into sim- ilar categories. However, when presenting arguments, group members rarely state claims in the form of questions. A claim is a declarative statement that identifies your position on a particular issue.

• A claim of fact attempts to prove that something is true, that an event occurred, or that a cause did have an effect. For example, “Sex education in schools promotes teenage promiscuity” is a claim of fact. Whether this claim is true or not depends on further analysis of the evidence and the warrant.

• A claim of conjecture suggests that something will or will not happen. For example, you could say, “Inflation will increase by 5 percent by next year.” Although your group cannot predict the future, it can make well-informed decisions based on the best information available.

• A claim of value asserts that something is worthwhile—good or bad; right or wrong; best, average, or worst. “My instructor is the best professor at the col- lege” is a claim that places a value on someone. Arguments involving claims of value are often difficult to prove because each group member brings per- sonal opinions and beliefs to the discussion.

• A claim of policy recommends a particular course of action. “We should raise tuition by 9 percent next year” is a claim of policy.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

1. Listen to the argument

2. State the claim you oppose

3. Give an overview of your objections

4. Assess the evidence

5. Assess the reasoning

6. Summarize your refutation

Figure 11.4 Procedure for Refuting Arguments

Support Your Claim

The fact that a claim is stated does not mean that it is true. In order to be convinc- ing, you must support your claim with strong and valid evidence. Regardless of whether that evidence takes the form of facts, opinions, definitions, descriptions, examples, illustrations, or statistics, groups should continuously evaluate the qual- ity of any evidence.

Provide Reasons

If it isn’t clear to others why a particular piece of evidence proves your claim, demon- strate the link between your evidence and your claim. In the Toulmin Model, this link is the warrant and the backing—statements that explain why the evidence is sufficient to prove the claim.

Suppose a friend tells you that drinking a glass of red wine daily combats heart dis- ease and reduces your chances of a life-threatening heart attack. Your friend cites the conclusions of several scientific studies as evidence. You may wonder: How can this be? Isn’t alcohol dangerous—doesn’t it do more harm than good? When you question the claim, your friend provides the argument’s warrant: The alcohol in a glass of red wine suppresses the accumulation of fatty plaques in the blood vessels, particularly the coronary arteries that supply the heart. Now the argument makes sense because you understand the reason for the claim.21

Summarize Your Argument

A good summary restates the original claim and summarizes the supporting evi- dence. Be brief. Don’t repeat all your evidence and reasons. When the presentation of the claim and the evidence has been brief and clear, you can omit the summary. How- ever, lengthy and complicated arguments often need a summary to ensure that all members understand your argument.

Refuting Arguments Refutation is the process of proving that an argument is false or lacks sufficient sup- port. Refutation can question, minimize, and deny the validity or strength of some- one else’s argument. Group members should be willing and able to refute claims that are unsupported or untrue. A group unwilling to evaluate arguments risks the per- ils of groupthink. Figure 11.4 shows six steps that can help you refute another mem- ber’s argument.

Listen to the Argument

First, listen for comprehension. You must fully understand an argument before you can refute it effectively. Ask questions and take notes. Once you comprehend the

280 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Refuting Arguments 281

meaning of an argument, you can shift to critical listening. What type of claim is it? Is there evidence to support the claim? How well does the evidence support the claim? What is the implied or stated warrant? Is the claim qualified in any way? Ana- lyzing the argument as you listen will help you formulate an appropriate response.

State the Opposing Claim

Group members may offer several claims during an argumentative discussion. Don’t try to respond to all of them at once. When you are ready, state the claim you oppose. Clearly stating the claim gives you the opportunity to make sure that you understand the argument. You may think the claim was “Employees are stealing supplies from the company.” Instead, the claim was “The company should identify ways to use sup- plies more efficiently.” If you have misunderstood a claim, other group members can clarify their arguments for you.

Preview Your Objections

Provide a brief overview of your objections or concerns. Let the others know the gen- eral direction of your arguments, particularly when your refutation will be lengthy or complicated, such as “I don’t believe we should raise funds for a carnival for three reasons: the high cost, the unpredictable weather, and the undesirable location.” If they have a general idea of the reasons for your refutation, group members will be better prepared to listen to and understand your objections and concerns.

Assess the Evidence

When refuting a claim, you may be able to show that the evidence supporting the claim is faulty. You can do this by presenting contradictory evidence. For example, if a group member contends that the college’s tuition is high, you may present evidence from a survey showing that the college’s tuition is one of the lowest in the state. You can also question the quality of evidence. For example, an outdated statistic or a quo- tation by a discredited source can be reason enough to reject an arguer’s evidence— and claim. Proving that the evidence is of poor quality does not mean that the claim is untrue but does highlight potential weaknesses.

Assess the Reasoning

Assess reasoning by identifying fallacies. A fallacy is an argument based on false or invalid reasoning. It is not always necessary to identify the fallacy by name, particu- larly if group members are not familiar with the different types of fallacies. It is much more important to explain why the reasoning in the argument is flawed. Table 11.1 lists and briefly describes some of the most common fallacies of argument.

• Ad hominem attack. In Latin, this phrase means “to the person.” An ad hominem argument attacks a person’s character rather than responding to the argument. Responding to a claim that children should attend school year- round with “What would you know? You don’t have kids” is an attack on the person rather than on the real argument. Unfortunately, negative political campaigns have become little more than a series of ad hominem attacks that often prove false when fully investigated.

• Appeal to authority. Using the conclusions and opinions of experts can pro- vide strong support for an argument. However, when the supposed expert

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Table 11.1 Fallacies of Argument

Fallacy Description

Ad Hominem Attack Attacks the person rather than the argument made by that person.

Appeal to Authority Relies on biased or unqualified expert opinion to support a claim.

Appeal to Popularity Justifies an action because many others do the same thing or share the same opinion. “Everyone’s doing it.”

Appeal to Tradition Resists changes to traditional behavior and opinions. “We have always done it this way.”

Faulty Analogy Compares two items that are not similar or comparable. “Comparing apples and oranges.”

Faulty Cause Claims that an effect is caused by something that has little or no relationship to the effect.

Hasty Generation Uses isolated or too few examples to draw a conclusion.

has no relevant expertise on the issue, the fallacy of appeal to authority occurs. The argument that “according to a talk show host, most men cheat on their wives” commits this fallacy. Unless the talk show host has expert cre- dentials on issues of fidelity and marriage or quotes recognized experts, the argument is vulnerable.

• Appeal to popularity. An argument of this nature claims that an action is acceptable or excusable because many people are doing it. When residents of New Orleans looted stores after Hurricane Katrina, some people defended their actions by saying that everyone else was doing it. Just because many people engage in an action does not make it right. Instead, it may mean that many people are wrong.

• Appeal to tradition. Claiming that people should continue a certain course of action because they have always done so in the past is an appeal to tradition, as illustrated in the argument, “The group meets on Monday afternoons because that is when we have always met.” Just because a group has been meeting on Mondays for a long period of time does not mean Monday meet- ings are the best choice.

• Faulty analogy. Claiming that two things are similar when they differ on rele- vant characteristics is a faulty analogy. During Operation Desert Storm (the conflict before the war in Iraq), critics claimed that the United States was involving itself in another Vietnam. However, supporters refuted the argu- ment by pointing out critical differences between these two engagements, particularly the fact that the U.S. military action in Operation Desert Storm had a specific objective and was over in a relatively short time.

• Faulty cause. Claiming that a particular event is the cause of another event before ruling out other possible causes is a faulty-cause fallacy. The claim that “increases in tuition caused enrollment to decline” may overlook other expla- nations, such as the possibility that a decline in enrollment could be a result of fewer eligible high school graduates or a perceived decline in a college’s academic quality.

282 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Adapting to Argumentation Styles 283

• Hasty generalization. An argument flawed by a hasty generalization uses too few examples or experiences to support its conclusion. This fallacy argues that if it is true for some, it must be true for all. “A Volvo is an unreliable car because I once owned one that was always breaking down” is a hasty gener- alization. The experience of a single car owner does not prove that all cars produced by that manufacturer are unreliable.

Summarize Your Refutation

The final step is to summarize your response. If your refutation has been lengthy or complex, it is helpful to restate the major points of your response. It is not necessary to review all your arguments in detail because doing so wastes valuable group dis- cussion time. If your refutation has been short and to the point, it may not be neces- sary to summarize your argument.

Adapting to Argumentation Styles Research suggests that men and women argue differently, as do group members from different cultures. Moreover, members’ emotional intelligence also affects how they develop and refute arguments. These differences appear to be a function of how we learn to argue and what values we believe are important. Effective group members recognize and try to adapt to other members’ ways of arguing.

Gender Differences

Researchers have found that women and men may argue differently in group decision-making interactions.22 Men tend to be competitive arguers, whereas women are more likely to seek consensus within a group. Men tend to view issues as only two-sided—for or against, right or wrong. Women are more likely to search out many different perspectives on a subject as well as ask questions.

However, there were no differences in men’s and women’s use of facts, opinions, statistics, or other types of evidence. In addition, men and women were relatively equal in voicing objections to others’ statements.

We caution you against stereotyping the way men and women argue. Don’t assume that the women in your group are more submissive and the men are more assertive. Instead, we prefer a dialectic approach: Groups benefit when members value both competition and cooperation. When group members argue, they must bal- ance “the tension between the need to agree and disagree, to challenge and reach con- vergence, to ask questions and make statements.” Although these “tasks may be divided along gender lines . . . there is nothing inherently superior or inferior about either men’s or women’s communication. They may be different, but they are both necessary and equally important to the group’s success in argument.”23

Cultural Differences

Cultures often dictate who should and should not argue. In some cultures, a young person would not challenge or argue with an older adult. Among several Native American and African cultures, the elderly rightfully claim more wisdom and knowl- edge than younger members.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Regardless of how persuasively you present an argu- ment, you should also argue ethically. In Advocacy and Opposition, Karyn and Donald Rybacki describe four ethical responsibilities in argumentation: research re- sponsibility, common good responsibility, reasoning responsibility, and social code responsibility.1

1. The Research Responsibility. Group members should be well informed and prepared to discuss the issues. To fulfill this responsibility, follow these guidelines: • Do not distort or suppress important informa-

tion and evidence. • Never fabricate or make up information. • Reveal the sources of information so others

can evaluate them. 2. The Common Good Responsibility. Ethical arguers

look beyond their own needs and consider the circumstances of others. Group members should be fully committed to achieving the group’s goal rather than merely winning an argument as indi- cated in the following two principles: • Consider the interests of those affected by the

decision. • Promote the group’s goal as more important

than winning an argument.

3. The Reasoning Responsibility. Group members understand the structure of an argument and apply that knowledge to presenting arguments and recognizing fallacies. Ethical members fulfill their reasoning responsibility by applying the fol- lowing guidelines: • Do not misrepresent the views of others. • Use sound reasoning supported by evidence. • Avoid making or accepting fallacious arguments.

4. The Social Code Responsibility. Group members promote an open and supportive climate for argumentation by following several guidelines: • Treat other group members as equals. • Give everyone, including those who disagree,

the opportunity to respond to an argument. • Do not insult or attack the character of a group

member. • Give the group an opportunity to review the

evidence.

1Karyn Charles Rybacki and Donald Jay Rybacki, Advocacy and Oppo- sition: An Introduction to Argumentation, 3rd ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1966), pp. 10–13. Subsequent editions of Rybacki and Rybacki do not include these four responsibilities, but do discuss ethical stan- dards for argumentation. See Karyn Charles Rybacki and Donald Jay Rybacki, Advocacy and Opposition: An Introduction to Argumentation, 5th ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2004), pp. 14–21.

ethics in groups Ethical Argumentation

One of the most significant cultural differences in argumentation is the way in which people use evidence to support a claim:

There are no universally accepted standards about what constitutes evidence. Among many devout Muslims and Christians, for instance, parables or stories—particularly from the Koran or Bible—are a powerful form of evidence. . . . The European American culture prefers physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, and members of that cul- ture see “facts” as the supreme kind of evidence . . . [whereas] in certain portions of Chinese culture . . . physical evidence is discounted because no connection is seen between . . . the physical world and human actions. . . . In certain African cultures, the words of a witness would be discounted and even totally disregarded because the peo- ple believe that if you speak up about seeing something, you must have a particular agenda in mind; in other words, no one is regarded as objective.24

Given such different perspectives about the value of evidence, the data used to support a claim in one culture may seem irrational in another.

284 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

In Neah Bay, Washington,

a Makah elder teaches

children about a sea star

they have found on the

beach. In many American

Indian and African

cultures, young people

rarely challenge or argue

with an older adult. Do

you believe that older

people in a community

can rightfully claim more

wisdom and knowledge

than younger members?

Adapting to Argumentation Styles 285

Argumentation and Emotional Intelligence

Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, defines emotional intelligence as the “capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships.”25

In many ways, emotional intelligence represents a significant aspect of effective group argumentation. The role of emotions in argumentation can take two forms: (1) curb- ing inappropriate emotions and (2) expressing appropriate emotions. Effective group members understand the need for both and learn how to balance their use.26

When group members argue about the wisdom of adopting a controversial pro- posal, whether to hire an unconventional job applicant, or how to break bad news to colleagues, they may need emotional intelligence to help them achieve their goal. In some cases, members will have to curb their emotions. In other circumstances, they can exert influence by heating up a discussion and/or strong emotions.

If group members become highly emotional or aggressive during a group discus- sion, you may be able to cool things down by suppressing your own emotions by using the following five tactics that correspond to the characteristics of emotional intelligence:

• Self-awareness: Calm down, tune in to your own feelings, and be willing to share those feelings with group members.

• Self-Regulation: Handle your emotions responsibly. Delay personal gratifica- tion to achieve group goals.

• Self-confidence: Show that you are willing to work things out by talking over the issue rather than escalating it.

• Self-control: State your own point of view in neutral language rather than using an antagonistic tone or combative words.

• Empathy: Look for an equitable way to resolve the dispute by working with those who disagree to find a resolution that both sides can embrace.27

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Many people mistakenly believe that Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, created the concept of emotional intelligence. Goleman, who has a Ph.D. in psychology and previously reported behavioral and brain science news for the New York Times, does not claim this honor for himself:

A comprehensive theory of emotional intelligence was proposed in 1990 by two psychologists, Peter Salovey and John Mayer. Another pioneering model of emotional intelligence was proposed in the 1980s by Reuven Bar-On, an Israeli psycholo- gist. . . . Salovey and Mayer defined emotional intelligence in terms of being able to monitor and regulate one’s own feelings and to use feeling to guide thought and action.1

In addition to those whom Goleman credits, we rec- ommend the works of Dr. Antonio Damasio, a neuro- surgeon who links emotions to human consciousness and—most important for the study of communica- tion—decision-making ability.2 Damasio focuses on what happens when people cannot make emotions work for them. He began his investigation by studying patients with damage to the emotional center of their brains. He noted that these patients make terrible deci-

sions even though their IQ scores stay the same. Though they test as “smart,” they “make disastrous choices in business and their personal lives, and can even obsess endlessly over a decision so simple as when to make an appointment.” Their decision- making skills are poor because they have lost access to their emotions. Damasio concludes that feelings are indispensable for rational decision making.3

Consider whether you could answer any of these questions without taking emotions into account: “Should I marry?” “What career should I pursue? “Should I buy this house?” Now put these kinds of questions into a group context: “What are the human consequences of our decision or solution?” “Should I let the others in my group know how uncomfortable I am with their proposed actions?” “What should I say to a bereaved colleague?”

1Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Book, 1995), p. 42. 2Goleman, pp. 27–28. Also see Antonio R. Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Quill, 2000). 3Goleman, p. 28. See Damasio, Descartes’ Error; Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Conscious- ness (San Diego: Harvest/Harcourt, 1999).

theory in groups The Origins of Emotional Intelligence

If you care about your group and its goal, express your emotions openly to inten- sify what you say. If, for example, your group needs motivation, you may enlist your emotions to express “infectious” enthusiasm and passion. If, however, your group is considering a decision you see as unethical or potentially disastrous, an appropriate display of anger, fear, or sorrow may help to underscore your arguments. Emotions capture attention, and operate as warnings, alarms, and motivators. They generate powerful messages by conveying crucial information without using words.28

286 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Summary Study Guide 287

summary study guide Critical Thinking and Argumentation • An argument is more than an opinion. It is a claim

supported by evidence and reasons for accepting it. • Argumentation is the way in which group members

use critical thinking to advocate proposals, examine competing ideas, and influence one another.

• Effective argumentation promotes understanding of others’ views, promotes critical thinking about ideas, helps avoid groupthink, and improves group decision making.

• Argumentativeness is the willingness to argue contro- versial issues with others. Individuals vary in how comfortable they feel arguing.

Structuring Arguments • The Toulmin Model of Argument represents the struc-

ture of an argument and a way to evaluate arguments. The components of the model include a claim, evi- dence, warrant, backing, reservation, and qualifier.

• The claim component of the Toulmin Model of Argu- ment is the conclusion or position you advocate.

• The evidence component of the Toulmin Model of Argument consists of the facts, statistics, opinions, examples, and other materials you use to support a claim.

• The warrant component of the Toulmin Model of Argument refers to the justification for accepting the evidence as support for a particular claim. It answers the question, “How did you get there?”

• The backing component of the Toulmin Model of Argument provides support for the warrant. It explains why the warrant is reasonable or acceptable.

• The reservation component of the Toulmin Model of Argument recognizes and acknowledges exceptions to an argument which would make the claim untrue under certain circumstances.

• The qualifier component of the Toulmin Model of Argument states the degree to which the claim appears to be true using terms such as likely, possibly, certainly, unlikely, and/or probably.

Supporting Arguments • A group member’s argument falls apart when that

member fails to do research to find valid evidence to support a claim and back the warrant.

• Evidence takes many forms including facts, opinions, definitions, descriptions, examples, illustrations, and statistics.

• Valid evidence must meet several criteria. It should come from an identified, credible, unbiased, and recent source, and the information should be consis- tent with other evidence.

• Determining the validity of statistical evidence requires answering three questions: (1) What is the source of the statistics? (2) Are the statistics accurate? and (3) How are the statistics reported?

Presenting Arguments • When presenting an argument, state your claim, sup-

port your claim, provide reasons, and summarize your argument.

• Argument claims generally fit into four categories— claims of fact, claims of conjecture, claims of value, and claims of policy.

Refuting Arguments • Refutation is the process of proving that an argument

is false or lacks sufficient support. It is used to ques- tion, minimize, and deny someone else’s argument.

• Six guidelines can help you refute an argument: (1) listen to the argument, (2) state the opposing claim, (3) preview your objections, (4) assess the evidence, (5) assess the reasoning, and (6) summarize your refu- tation.

• A fallacy is an argument based on false or invalid rea- soning. Common fallacies include ad hominem attack, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, faulty analogy, faulty cause, and hasty gen- eralization.

Adapting to Argumentation Styles • Women and men may argue differently. Men tend to

be competitive arguers, whereas women prefer to seek consensus. However, there is no significant dif- ference in men’s and women’s use of evidence.

• Cultures often dictate who should and should not argue. Culture also influences the way in which peo- ple use evidence to support a claim.

• Emotional intelligence refers to the capacity to recog- nize our own and others’ feelings and to manage our emotions. The role of emotions in argumentation can take two forms: (1) curbing inappropriate emotions and (2) expressing appropriate emotions.

• Five tactics can help calm a highly emotional or aggressive discussion. Use self-awareness, self- regulation, self-confidence, self-control, and empathy.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

288 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

key terms ad hominem attack 281 appeal to authority 281 appeal to popularity 282 appeal to tradition 282 argument 268 argumentation 268 argumentativeness 271 backing 273 bias 277 claim 272

claim of conjecture 279 claim of fact 279 claim of policy 279 claim of value 279 cooperative

argumentation 268 critical thinking 268 definition 275 description 276 documentation 277

emotional intelligence 285 evidence 272 example 276 fact 275 fallacy 281 faulty analogy 282 faulty cause 282 hasty generalization 283 illustration 276 opinion 275

oral citation 277 qualifier 273 refutation 280 research 274 reservation 273 statistic 276 Toulmin Model of

Argument 272 valid 276 warrant 272

critical thinking about the case study Slicing the Pie

1 To what extent is the Student Finance Board experiencing the benefits of argumenta- tion such as enhanced understanding, better critical thinking, avoiding groupthink, and improving decision making?

2 What is Patrice’s primary claim in her argument? What evidence and warrant sup- port her position?

3 What types of evidence do various Student Finance Board members use to support their positions? Is the evidence valid? Why or why not?

4 Which fallacies of reasoning are evident in some of the board members’ arguments?

5 How can the Student Finance Board improve the quality of their arguments in order to reach final budget decisions that are fair and justified?

6 How can board members better adapt to the different argumentation styles among its members?

7 Which dialectic tensions are most evident in this group and what could be done to achieve a both/and resolution of the tensions?

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Group Work 289

group work Got Water? Directions: Read the passage from “Got Water?” When you finish reading, complete the tasks described after the passage.

Got Water?

In the August 12, 2005, edition of the New York Times, Tom Standage writes that Americans squander billions of dollars on bottled water. Americans drink, on average, twenty-four gallons of bottled water a year; among beverages, only soda outsells it. And it’s not a bargain. In fact, a gallon of Evian or Poland Spring costs more than a gallon of gasoline—which explains how we’re spending $10 billion a year on the stuff. But why do we do it? Not for the taste. In blind tastings between bottled water and tap water from major municipal systems, “most people cannot tell the difference.” Tests show that bottled water is just as likely as tap water to contain contaminants, while offering no nutritional advantage. And whereas tap water is nearly free, plentiful, and has no negative impact on the environment, shipping and refrigerating bottled water consumes a lot of energy and creates serious disposal problems.

1. List three of the claims made in Standage’s article:

(a)

(b)

(c)

2. Identify three types of evidence Standage uses to support his claims:

(a)

(b)

(c)

3. Identify two stated or implied warrants for Standage’s claims:

(a)

(b)

4. Does Standage provide backing for the warrants, reservations, or qualifiers of his argument? If not, which ones were missing—and were they needed to make his case?

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

_____ 1. While in an argument, I worry that the person I am arguing with will form a negative impression of me.

_____ 2. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence.

_____ 3. I enjoy avoiding arguments.

_____ 4. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue.

_____ 5. Once I finish an argument, I promise myself that I will not get into another.

_____ 6. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.

_____ 7. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument.

_____ 8. When I finish arguing with someone, I feel nervous and upset.

_____ 9. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.

_____ 10. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument.

_____ 11. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.

_____ 12. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening.

_____ 13. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue about a controversial issue.

_____ 14. I prefer being with people who rarely disagree with me.

_____ 15. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual exchange.

_____ 16. I find myself unable to think of effective points during an argument.

_____ 17. I feel refreshed after an argument on a controversial issue.

_____ 18. I have the ability to do well in an argument.

_____ 19. I try to avoid getting into arguments.

_____ 20. I feel excitement when I expect that a conversation I am in is leading to an argument.

group assessment Argumentativeness Scale Directions. This questionnaire contains statements about arguing over controversial issues. Indicate how often each statement is true for you personally by placing the appropriate number in the blank. Use the following ratings to respond to each statement:

1 = almost never true 2 = rarely true 3 = occasionally true 4 = often true 5 = almost always true

Scoring Instructions

1. Add your scores on items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20. 2. Add 60 to the sum obtained in step 1. 3. Add your scores on items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19. 4. To compute your argumentativeness score, subtract the total obtained in step 3 from the total obtained in step 2.

Interpretation of Scores

73–100 = high in argumentativeness 56–72 = moderate in argumentativeness 20–55 = low in argumentativeness

Source: Dominic A. Infante and Andrew Rancer, “Argumentativeness Scale,” from The Journal of Personality Assessment, 1982. Reprinted by permission of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and the scale authors.

290 Chapter 11 Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Notes 291

notes 1. David R. Seibold and Renee A. Meyers, “Group Argument:

A Structuration Perspective and Research Program,” Small Group Research 38 (2007), pp. 315, 320.

2. D. Christopher Kayes, “From Climbing Stairs to Riding Waves: Group Critical Thinking and Its Development,” Small Group Research 36 (2006), p. 615.

3. Seibold and Meyers, p. 320.

4. Josina M. Makau and Debian L. Marty, Cooperative Argu- mentation: A Model for Deliberative Community (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2001), p. 87.

5. Josina M. Makau, Reasoning and Communication: Thinking Critically about Arguments (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990), p. 54.

6. Seibold and Meyers, p. 320.

7. See Sandra M. Ketrow and Beatrice G. Schultz, “Using Argumentative Functions to Improve Decision Quality in the Small Group,” in Argument and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. Raymie E. McKerrow (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1993), pp. 218–225.

8. Dominic A. Infante and Andrew S. Rancer, “A Conceptual- ization and Measure of Argumentativeness,” Journal of Per- sonality Assessment 46 (1982), pp. 72–80.

9. Dean C. Kazoleas and Bonnie Kay, “Are Argumentatives Really More Argumentative? The Behavior of Argumenta- tives in Group Deliberations over Controversial Issues” (paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communica- tion Association, New Orleans, LA, 1994).

10. Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London: Cam- bridge University, 1958), p. 94.

11. Toulmin, pp. 97–113.

12. Toulmin, p. 99.

13. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), p. 1940.

14. Based on an example in Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (New York: Macmillan, 1979), p. 45.

15. New York Times 1999 Almanac (New York: Penguin, 1998), p. 395.

16. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: HarperPerennial, 1985), p. 21.

17. USA Today, quoted in The Week, January 6, 2006, p. 16.

18. See Isa N. Engleberg and Dianna R. Wynn, The Challenge of Communicating: Guiding Principles and Practices (Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2008), pp. 340–341.

19. Carol Tavris, The Mismeasure of Woman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 94.

20. Dominic A. Infante and Andrew S. Rancer, Arguing Con- structively (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1988), p. 57.

21. For articles about the cardiac benefits of red wine, see http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e10 from the American Heart Association and http://www .ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html from the Yale-New Haven Hospital. Retrieved May 5, 2008.

22. Renee A. Meyers, Dale Brashers, LaTonia Winston, and Lindsay Grob, “Sex Differences and Group Arguments: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Investigation,” Communication Studies 48 (1997), p. 33.

23. Meyers et al., pp. 35–36.

24. Myron W. Lustig and Jolene Koester, Intercultural Compe- tence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures, 5th ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2006), p. 241.

25. Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam, 1998), p. 317.

26. Based on Goleman, p. 318. Also see Henrie Weisinger, Emotional Intelligence at Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), pp. xix–xxii.

27. Goleman, p. 182.

28. Goleman, p. 165.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

boom:

title: Working in Groups 5e Ch11
subtitle:
abstract:
text:

instructions: This is a Protected PDF document. Please enter your user name and password to unlock the text.

form:

username_label: User Name:
response:

username:
docid: 1000-0001-C579-000929BC

pwd_label: Password:
neversend:

pwd:

unlocked:

rememberme: Yes
rememberme_label: Remember my user name and password.

help: If you are experiencing problems unlocking this document or you have questions regarding Protectedpdf files please contact a Technical Support representative: In the United States: 1-877-832-4867 In Canada: 1-800-859-3682 Outside the U.S. and Canada: 1-602-387-2222 Email: [email protected].
protectedpdf_version: 2012-4-13 (Version 2.6.0 Build 2.0.7.36)
version: 2012-06-06
logo:
info_publisher: This document is published by: Apollo Group, Inc.
info: