Reading Response 3

Argument: A discussion between two or more people concerning the difference of opinions on a certain topic. The books definition and my definition of argument have much similarity. I limited my definition to opinions, while the book added differing ideas as well as beliefs. While I expressed my argument as a discussion, the book expressed argument as the agreement to make visible the reasons for holding such ideas, opinions, and beliefs. The difference between our two definitions is quite subtle. Our two definitions relay the same point of a presentation of two different viewpoints.
Walter’s second largest problem appears to be the lack of preparation for a persuasive speech. He presented an unpracticed, poorly thought out presentation. The group wanted to gain female members into their fast car project, but did not think about how to accomplish their goal. They did not connect to their audience on any level other than a generic engineering level. If Walter had thought of how beneficial this opportunity could be for the women in engineering, he could have made a stronger case of how useful the women were. Also, his form of a persuasive presentation lacked conviction and form. He simply presented orally, without any help from aids or specific purpose. More preparation into his ideas and needs for the group would have helped immensely.

When someone presents an argument, he or she makes a claim and provides evidence to support it in the hopes of persuading others to take the same view.
My own definition is essentially the same as the one provided in the article, though much less detailed. The main difference is that, according the authors, an argument –– even a successful one –– does not necessarily have to completely change someone’s stance on something. Instead, a successful argument simply presents the position and allows the “other side” to consider it. Either their adherence to their beliefs will be strengthened or weakened –– sometimes considerably, sometimes not at all. Also, I tend to think of “arguments” as formal affairs (premises and conclusion presented within a greater structure), rather than the more informal swaying of opinion suggested by the authors.

-----

Initially I was irate and wrote a scathing criticism about how the members of Fast Car had fallen prey to traditional female stereotypes, etc. True as this may (or may not) be however, it is not the heart of the problem…

I actually disagree somewhat with the authors’ assessment of the Fast Car team’s mistakes –– while their largest problem is undisputedly a lack of specific purpose, this error goes much deeper than their decision to recruit some “token females” to join the team.

Consider: The description of the Enterprise program mentions other, non-technical components that are just as vital to the entire project as the engineering itself (i.e. marketing, business, etc.).

Rather than first assessing where their needs were greatest (i.e. their communication skills, marketing skills, etc.) and taking that information into account when determining whom they should target to join, the team members limited their search to women from their own discipline –– women who have the exact same skills and interests that Fast Car’s members already have.

Had they considered what it was that they really needed, the team members might not have found themselves in such a predicament... so long as they then considered their audience when recruiting members of “Women in Marketing,” "Women in Business," or some other such organization.

#1.
My definition of an argument is a discussion that involves multiple ideas, biases, and points of views. It can be used to persuade, convey information or as a medium to make certain beliefs known. However, the exert uses completely different definition of the word.
The exert points out that many people automatically associate the word argument with a debate or disagreement. We picture people at each other’s throats yelling and screaming. Perhaps we picture a political debate on TV. Nonetheless, the exert would like to explain to the reader that this is not the definition of argument the exert will be referring to. The exert defines argument as “communication whose purpose is to direct and shape and audience’s attention in particular ways.”
This definition does not count on a debate or a difference of opinion. This definition is more closely related to the term “persuasion” than that of disagreement. A broad example given by the exert is when we attempt to get others to follow us in some way. The exert says it can happen between individuals, like deciding what movie to watch with a friend, or between groups, like organizing a sorority fundraiser.
Therefore, my definition of argument is hardly similar in any way to the definition presented in the exert. However, I did not persuasion as something achieved by argument. The exert takes the next step and claims that argument itself can indeed be persuasion.

#2.
The biggest problem was most certainly the lack of a specific purpose. This is what lead the group and Walter to the types of problems they ran into with attempting to recruit women. However, what would be the next largest communication problem? Clearly, the other major problem with the presentation was that any preparations which were made were made for an incredibly different audience.
Walter went to the society of women engineers pitch completely unprepared to persuade a room full of women. He stereotyped women by listing minute taking and note taking as possible functions for new members. Had he thought his pitch through, and realized he was presenting this pitch to women, he would have recognized the blatant stereotype immediately.
Claiming that the women “might have fun” with the “secretarial type of stuff” was terribly worded and completely out of place. The women in that room have been stereotyped their entire lives. To begin with, they are in engineering, which is typically a male dominated field. Fast Cars itself was already a male dominated organization. Not only did Walter not prepare and know what to say to his audience of women, but he did worse than not appeal to them. He stereotyped women, and alienated them from his cause. Clearly, his lack of preparation and recognition of his audience is the second largest flaw in his presentation. Had Walter had a purpose for asking women to join, and a well thought out pitch which appealed to the audience he most certainly would have found himself with plenty of recruits.

1 - I believe that an argument is a composition of evidence that is used to support an assertion. This is how I have used the term in various classes particularly logic and philosophy. Before these classes though, an argument represented two people shouting at each other. Taking a closer look at this definition of an argument, we can see that each person is trying to emphasize their point of view by giving evidence towards why their own assertion is right. Since the two arguers have clashing assertions, they try their best to make their point more plausible by giving evidence and attacking their opponents presented evidence. The shouting part can be considered a tactic to emphasize their emotion towards the argument which may or may not intimidate the other player in this game of debates. The term argument that is outlined in the excerpt is very similar to my own definition in the sense that evidence serves as the premise and an assertion would be the conclusion of an argument. This definition would be considered a formal argument as opposed to the informal argument which the excerpt defines as a way of ‘directing someone’s attention in a new or different direction’. An informal argument doesn’t need an explicit statement of a premise or a conclusion which differs entirely from my known definition.

2 - I believe their second biggest problem was the fact that they opened their mouths to speak at the SWE meeting. They probably would have had better chances of getting women to join if they kept their mouths shut the entire meeting and just made funny faces. Although the article mentions that Walter & Friends did not imply women were lesser by what they said, specifically, “…secretarial-type stuff…,” it is clear that W&Fs initial reaction represents their overall perception of woman. A secretary is considered a ‘less-than’ job in which they work for an employee who is considered to do the main tasks required by the company. A job to make their boss’s life easier by taking memos, organizing meetings, etc. To say that a person is not capable of doing the main work and will be asked to do a ‘less-than’ task is insulting. Since W&Fs failed to offer any of the main tasks to the women, they were immediately insulted. Now those guys are so deep in the hole that it would be so very hard to organize another meeting with the SWE. Their chances can be found kilometers underground from where they started, or where they would be if they just kept their mouths shut.

Question 1 -
In my definition an argument is some sort of evidence used to support a theory or opinion, a form of logic used to give credibility and reason to that theory or opinion. People are said to be arguing when they have views or opinions that contradict each other and must come to a consensus over to cease the argument. Arguments are what force us to make decisions.
In the excerpt they seem to have a pretty similar view of arguments that I have. I would probably contribute this to have read about this before and because I read the article before I wrote this response so some information that I would normally forget is fresh in my mind. I don’t really see a much argument over my definition and the excerpt’s definition of argument other than the excerpt being much clearer in the different forms that argument can manifest itself.

Question 2 -
The second major problem that the group had was not taking into consideration their audience. They should have foreseen the different viewpoints that their audience, women, would have and how they may react to certain things. Also, they were pitching what seemed to be secretarial positions to a group of women who would obviously resent the idea that they are there to do men’s busy work. And once their audience felt ostracized by their comments, it wouldn’t matter how extraordinary the rest of presentation was, they wouldn’t get of the female engineers to join.

1. The term “argument,” at least in my vocabulary, is probably most commonly used as a term to nicely describe a fight or a quarrel between two or more people. That definition was used as one of the definitions in the book. “Argument” also, according to the book, might suggest debates, where two sides face off over an issue. However, the book wants us to forget these definitions for the purpose of this course. An argument, according to the book, occurs when people hold different ideas, opinions, or beliefs and when they agree to make visible for holding their ideas, opinions or beliefs. Things such as decision making, formal argument, and informal arguments.
2. I think their second biggest problem is probably internal communication. The group has not really discussed why they need girls. They just know, for whatever reason, they want girls to be on the team. For example, one might want girls to be on the team, because he is interested in meeting girls. Another might want girls on the team, because he doesn’t want to have to do all the potentially dull secretarial stuff. Another person might want girls on the team to see what they can do to make the fast car better, because girls and guys think differently and it’s always nice to get a new perspective.

1. Argument is a discussion between two sides, whether one-on-one or group against group. This discussion may become heated and lead to more violent measures or may lead to an understanding between the opposite sides.

One similarity between my definition and the excerpt is the idea of opposition. One difference is how the article terms argument as a means for making visible their opinion. I was not detailed by noting that an argument is a means of displaying. I did note, however, that an understanding or even swaying of opinions was a possible outcome, while the article did not speak of results.

2. If the design of the article can be used as a means of discerning the answer, I would say that Walter and his group had not thought about their audience and this became their second biggest mistake. The audience is an important component because their reaction helps decide a lot in terms of what the composition was for. The design also shows how important it can be in terms of guiding a reader to specific points of interest.

1 - My definition of the word argument would fall somewhere along the lines of a verbal altercation between two or more people about an issue, usually with the intent of proving a point, or being correct about an issue while proving the other person(s) wrong. The way the article describes arguments is a very similar definition, however it refrains from the terminology of it necessarily being an altercation. It can instead just be an expression or presentation of their point of view. Other than that, I believe our definitions are nearly identical, save wording of course.

2 - I don't think necessarily there was a lack of specific purpose, they just didn't prepare for it well enough. What they all knew, they just didn't project very well, or at all, they could use the women to fill any of the jobs that were available, including those that the men held (well, given they were open and not taken that is). But as for the second biggest problem, which I personally believe is the first, is the lack of preparation for going in to meet with the Society of Women Engineers. They should have thoroughly thought out, and understood that they could take any job available, and they should have been able to present it that way, prior to any questions being taken. They should have been able to provide descriptions of all the jobs, not leaving anything out that was available. When asked the question that blew their chances, they should have responded with a diversity statement, a response that would placed things in a much better situation for the group.

1.)My definition of “argument” is a process of communicating a point to another person in an attempt to have them see your point of view. The book defines argument similarly. Almost anything can present an argument, whether it is a book, movie, or any other of media. The book presents the idea that an argument can be successful without swaying the other side to your opinion, but personally I do not find this true. The whole purpose of an argument is to get someone to agree with your own opinion and if you are unable to provide adequate evidence and explanation to convince someone, your argument has failed.
2.)The second problem that the Fast Car group encountered was their lack of a specific argument for their target audience. They knew that they wanted some women to join their group to help on the project, but they were not ready to present this project to the women and explain to them why their help was needed. If the group had thought of a persuasive argument to get the women to join, they might have had better luck. Instead of going into the meeting and accidentaly offending the women, Walters group should have though up an argument to present to the women of why exactly their project needs additional members and what specific tasks the women would be needed to help with.

1. Argument is a disagreement between two or more individuals, in which a person (or group) tries to influence the opposition's stance. The major difference between my definition and the author's is that when each side presents their argument to the opposition, they are merely (or at the very least) trying to inform. When I think of argument, I think of a person (or group) actively engage in trying to change the viewpoints of the disagreeing individuals. It seems like if a person's aim is to only inform, the argument becomes obsolete because more often than not people will just turn a blind eye.
2. Besides not having a specific purpose, there second biggest problem would have to be that they did not properly assess their audience. As the article stated, the only thing they took into consideration coming into the meeting was that they needed women in their group. The did not bother analyzing who they were talking to specifically. They should have recognized that these women are already very accomplished by the fact that they are in the engineering field, and that regardless of gender, any engineer would be offended by being only offered secretarial duties as a position. Technically, they could have still gotten a few women into the group without even defining a specific purpose. Some of these women might have came into the meeting already wanting to join the group because their interest level was already high. After making the secretary comment, the fast car group most likely would have lost these women.

Argument is a discussion between two or more people with different ideas. They have contradicting ideas and are trying to convince the opposing group that they are correct.
My definition is similar to the books. It explains that when a person hears about an argument, they thinkg about two people face to face with raised voices. If I was told by someone that they got into an argument I would picture the same thing. What is different is that the book says two sides trying to present reasons that they are right. I think that if you are arguing you are trying to prove them that you are right compared to them.

The second biggest problem that Walter's group was communication. They couldn't communicated what they wanted and their ideas to the women because they didn't prepare. Had they prepared thouroughly what they were going to present, talk about, and explain they would have been able to communicate better with their audience, the Society of Women Enginners. Both of these, communication and preparation are tied, but i think that communication is the biggest.

Question 1:
An argument is a situation which involves two or more sides trying to accomplish something. They are mainly trying to get the opposing party, or the audience to view things from a different perspective. That perspective can be their own or that of a company’s or organization’s.
My definition of an argument closely resembles that of the book’s, but in less words. Their definition for argument not only consists of a person trying to argue their beliefs, but those concerning media. More specifically, those of radio commentaries, sitcoms, and editorials about political and moral beliefs. The book considers that the over all purpose of an argument is to present positions to others in some kind of shape or form.
Question 2:
Among the problems listed, the team’s second largest problem would have been that they did not think about the audience when they were constructing their argument. Considering the audience when you make an argument assists greatly in constructing a more effective argument. You need to think about how to reach that audience, the need to empathize should be present at all times. Stating that the women would be useful in secretarial ways was a big mistake. It obviously shows that they did not consider their audience whatsoever, and what kind of reaction they would get by supplying a reason such as that. When making an argument, a person or team needs to consider what it takes to motivate an audience to agree with them.

Arguments, in my eyes, are conflicts of ideas, opinions, actions, etc. that people and groups find themselves in. The conflicts can take moments up to years, and can be as small as one comment or nonverbal message up to massive wars. Each side tries to persuade the other that their idea/opinion/action is correct/better.

CDA states that “argument occurs when people hold differing ideas, opinions, or beliefs and when they agree to make visible their reasons for holding their ideas, opinions, or beliefs.” Unlike my definition, the book included beliefs in the list of things people can disagree on. I agree with their addition because it is common that people do not agree on others’ views of religion, political ideals, dreams, and hopes. I also did not specify that both sides agreed to make their differences visible. In my definition, I assumed that the conflicts were mutual.

The women of SWE were not convinced to join the Fast Car group because Walter and his friends barely even tried to sway them. Their lack of communication strategies was their second largest downfall. Walter & Co didn’t plan their speech beforehand into a set strategy. They could have at least started by commending the women for standing out from the pack and entering a difficult area often dominated by men. Instead, by answering the question of “Why do you want women to join?” with talk about secretarial work and writing memos, Walter and his friends came across as being unorganized, not serious in their request for female members, and very disrespectable to women of engineering.

I would define argument as "a statement that holds to particular ideas." I see argument mostly as a person's belief or notion on a particular subject that they feel strongly enough about to discuss. I think my definition is fairly similar to that of the article, that argument is when people holding differing ideas, opinions, or beliefs make those reasons for holding such notions, known to others (18).

Their biggest problem was a lack of purpose, i.e. knowing "why" they wanted women as part of the project and how to appeal to the needs that women engineers would have for the project, but I suppose their second biggest problem would have to be their lack of knowledge about women engineers, period. They may try to explain it away by saying they weren't expecting such a question (26) as "why do you want women to join?" (24) but the fact remains that they obviously didn't have any thought to what women engineers are. Engineers, but with a female perspective. Meeting with such ladies and speaking to them about writing reports for the men in the group is basically grounds for a beatdown. Some planning, or at the very least speaking to female engineers beforehand could have given them some knowledge about how to approach their organizaion and appeal for help.

1) I feel that an argument is any opinion that is expressed that the writer is trying to sway the reader about. The degree to which the writer is trying to sway the reader can vary greatly. Generally though I think that people giving an argument want their readers to be changed by what the read. Whether you read a book and simply are more aware of a given topic or if you are moved enough to go fight the good fight in the name of the writer. The book says: "in this book we consider the overall purposes of argument to be presenting our positions to others in some kind of shape or arrangement so that others can see (or hear) and consider them." I don't think that the two definitions of argument are all that different. The book however does not mention persuasion or really effect. Yes, you want your writing to be considered, but people rarely make art simply for the purpose of making art. People make art because they feel something in their hearts and they want to share it with the world.

2) I think that the problem was that there was no particular reason for them to be doing this. Ok, so these guys are interested by building fast cars and doing engineering. Why was it decided that they needed women on the team in the first place? It's not like they had been actively pushing women away from their team. So when they idea came up that they should have more women on the team, they should have honestly looked as to why they thought that. By having women on the team were they hoping to get closer to girls in general? Did they think having women on their team would make the product better and why? It seems to me that the answer would probably be a mixture of the two. An extremely large proportion of people would probably prefer to do things that they enjoy(i.e. building fast cars) with people of the opposite sex that share that same enjoyment given the chance. Since they didn't really think out their reasoning for this - they came off poorly. When asked why they wanted women on their team they resorted to stereotypes(i.e. women make good secretaries) which would specifically offend an all female organization.

1. An argument is when two people come together and one tries to convince the other to do something. What "Compose, Design, Advocate" says about an argument is pretty much the same except they make their definition much wider. The definition of argument from their stand is not just to convince but to just direct or change there ideas about something in a certain way. The books view of arguments as not just when two or more people are involved but when any person is trying to make a decision.

2. I think that Walter’s other main problem was why do you want women to be involved in something like this and how to approach them as an audience. This problem all could have been solved by a question as simple as asking one of the women from the group before what interests you about the Fast Cars project. By doing this it would have let Walters group have something to focus on when approaching the meeting with women. This would have also given them something to grab the women’s attention therefore possibly got them to join the group. Something so simple as getting information about the audience that they were speaking to would have simply allowed Walter’s group to accomplish their goal.

I would define argument as supporting a particular position and conveying that position in an attempt to persuade others. This definition is similar to what they have defined in the article. They talk about an argument as a "piece of communication whose purpose is to direct and shape an audience's attentions in particular ways." Although they don't specifically say it, this is exactly the way that I would define "persuasion." In a previous class based on persuasion, they taught us that persuasion was a continuous effort, and that rarely did it work to actually change a person's views entirely, but rather to weaken them on an opposing stance, or strengthen them on a similar stance. The talk about an argument in a very similar way saying that "rarely do our words or other communications change someone's mind or cause them to storm out of the room determined to do something; most often, we might only strengthen or weaken their adherence to a belief, or we might move them closer to or further away from a possible action." My definition differs in that I included that the arguments intent was to persuade, however, it's primarily just a matter of using different words to explain the same thing.

I think that as the article eluded to, the second biggest problem that they had was not knowing there audience. It really wouldn't matter how well they had prepared the message if it wasn't well directed at the audience they intended. As they found out, failing to do so gave the wrong impression, and they actually conveyed much of the opposite type of message as they had hoped. They forgot to do their homework and put themselves in the audience's position to try and figure out how they would react, or the questions they might ask.

My definition of "argument" is a mutual disagreement between two parties that includes some sort of confrontation. This is not much different than the article's definition of argument, as their definition conveys a very similar idea.

I believe their second biggest problem was lack of planning. It seemed like they did not exactly plan out what they wanted to say and what EXACTLY they wanted the women to do. As far as I know, they did not have much of a reason for wanting only women to do that work either. So why did they want women? If only a little thought were put into it, they could have said that they wanted more diversity on the project and more input from different groups of people with different backgrounds. This would have been much more effective.