Reading Response 3

#1

An argument to me is a debate where each party provides their own perspectives in the hope of persuading others to some end. My definition is similar to that in the excerpt in that it accounts for the concept that an argument only takes place when two parties differ in opinion about some matter and are trying to persuade/inform the other about their position. However mine differs from theirs in that they highlight many more aspects of arguing that can add to the overall persuasiveness/effectiveness.

#2

It seems to me that any additional problems that the group encountered were most likely results of not addressing the main problem of not having a specific purpose. After reading this excerpt I got the feeling that the process described was designed to be a sort of catch-all for problems arising when preparing a communication. It provides a set of guidelines to follow when preparing a presentation and it emphasizes recursiveness as a method to root out all possible problems. I suppose it would be safe to say that another problem the team failed to address was simply not being fully prepared for their presentation.

Question One

Mine
Argument: A debate held among different individual perspectives to help those individuals agree on a particular topic that was most supported.

Their
The reading goes over how argument coined more as a rhetoric. Rhetoric is an effective use of words when informing or arguing until persuading. This style of argument was commonly used when higher power officials would persuade their followers (land keepers) to side to their side.

Difference
My definition is a more open ended in where there could actually be a discussion and not just one directed perspective with the rhetoric perspective.

Question Two

Audience Empathy
Initially the lack of women in their project motivated lead them to the Society of Women Engineering (SWE). This society is filled with women who are trying to move as a group to be seen more seriously.

The main website of SWE states,
http://www.swe.org

SWE empowers women to succeed and advance in those aspirations and be recognized for their life-changing contributions and achievements as engineers and leaders.

So when Walter and his buddies just were standing up there trying to sell their project proposal all the SWE members probably were more interested in:

what brought them to SWE

what positions are they offering

what type of work has been done already

how will this profit them.

Personally I feel that by not knowing your audience is as good as talking to the wall.

They should have done research over what SWE was all about and go over with the president of SWE what they were going to present and what positions they need filled.

1. My definition of argument is a discussion involving two or sides of a topic where each side provides information and evidence to bring an agreement on one side. To me arguments are usually informal debates that are usually left unresolved. Their definition of argument was much different than mine. It seemed that their definition was historically derived from the Greek city states in which people would come together and publicly discuss how their city was to be run. Our definition was similar on the basis that people would get together and discuss topics, but not necessarily to convince one the other is correct. Theirs seems to be more of a public conversation than a debate.

2. I think that their second biggest problem was the lack of preparation. They went into the presentation without any plan. They knew what they wanted but did not think about how they were going to present it. They should have made a powerpoint or something that would have brought a better idea of what they were looking for.

1. My definition for an argument would be in a casual setting where two or more parties debate a particular topic. The debate would be spontaneous and not planned. The purpose would be to try and convince the other party or parties that their side was the better choice.

My definition is both similar and different from that of the one outlined in the reading. They are both similar with the same purpose, to try and convince the other side that their side is better. Yet they are different in the way they are structured. My definition is an everyday argument that you would see between two people. They have different opinions about a topic and argue over it. Yet the definition in the reading talks about structuring your argument to make it more professional, from preparing an outline of the points you want to hit, to even considering the audience when preparing it.

2. I believe the second main problem of the group was not basing their argument on the audience it was aimed toward. The group didn’t consider that they were presenting to a group of women and out right said they wanted a woman to be a secretary. This in turn angered the audience that wanted to be recognized for their engineering skills, and not just thought of as being a secretary. If the audience thought of this they could have targeted the audience better and got a better response from them.

Other facets of rudimentary semantics aside, an argument to me (prior to this article) was simply a rhetorical stance on any given issue surrounding a subject. The underlying developments of context and purpose were secondary notions of this, but through the article we see how these ideas incorporate a larger, all-inclusive process and should be treated with similar priorities. In order for an argument to be considered sound, a firm foundation of audience consideration, context, and issues crucial to the technical development of that argument must be considered, as well as tested where applicable. Argument in the sense of the article is more concretely defined as an ongoing process of considerations. Developing characteristics, purpose for both creation and audience, and the most efficient means of conveyance are all factors taken into consideration by the argumentative process in the article.

In terms of the problem with the Fast Car engineering team, the article seems to be suggesting the second biggest problem was lack of consideration for their audience, but in fact I believe this was their primary problem, with lack of specific purpose secondary to this. That is, not to discredit lacking a purpose as a serious issue, but without covering your audience first, how can you specify a purpose that would cater best to that audience? This may seem a bit circular, but the issue brought up in the article was not that they had failed to produce a general purpose, but rather that they failed to consider a proposal to the question concerning the audience. The best way to devise this purpose is of course to know the inquirer themselves. Once you have a definite understanding of your audience, you are then in a more adequate position to formulate purpose, which can then complement a context, strategy, communicative medium, and so forth.

Problem, One.

Self definition of Argument- The act of reasoning for a purpose.

Similar: I think that page 29 has the bulk of what an argument is or
might be. It referred back to BCE Athens, Greece and it's participants in debate on how to run the city. In this situation it was the input of those there to reason what would be best, or to rationalize the best possible solution. Even that, they mentioned it as conversations. The speakers were working their presentations in persuasive means. In that rationalizing their conclusions. With a purpose driven action channeled though persuasion that included reasons or reasoning, this would coincide with my definition.

Difference: It came to the citizens that arguments (speeches) were to
be perceived as an art form, or rhetorical (in that it spurred debate) giving it an association with a set of principles or a systematic process. As for my definition, I believe it's very concise and sufficient, but also flexible. It can be expanded to specific means of arguments. Whether the argument resides with two opposing sides with a conflict of interest, an argument within one individual, or in a form of enlarged conversation (a speech). All these retaining their own certain elements.

Question, Two.

I believe that their second biggest problem should have been their lack of specific purpose. At least through their purpose they knew their audience, the women from SWE. Now, I say "knew" in a shallow sense, they quite obviously didn't really know their audience, but knew who they were targeting. Moving on, if they don't satisfy their audience then their purpose isn't fulfilled. If they had researched or analyzed their audience they would've been able to target their purpose and be better equipped to persuade them into joining the group. So, having the audience as the number one priority they can better appropriate their purpose leading to an effective communication for their success.

The term argument often makes me think of a conflict among persons with different perspectives on a particular subject. Each person involved attempts to persuade the others that his/her own perspective is more reasonable.
The text discusses the use of rhetoric through the original Greek approach as well as the approach the text itself is trying to convey to the reader. The Greek approach was focused more on speech making which grew out of citizens urge to take part in public conversations. The text presents the reader with the idea that it's own approach can be applied to any situation in which one must address a diverse audience. My definition agrees in the sense that an individuals perspective is being communicated to others in hopes of persuasion. My definition might differ because the speaker could possibly be informing the audience without the presence of opposition.
----
The second biggest problem was been lack of preparation. The group did not take into consideration Who they were presenting to. They should have researched information to include in the speech regarding women engineers. It was apparent form the story that Walter's group did not preconceive a plan for what they would say or do once they arrived in front of their audience. The group's lack of preparation caused the audience to find the speech offending rather than appealing.

1.I think that an argument is a debate/conflict between two partys. While in a argument that there are three possible outcomes. two of the possible outcomes are that one of the people win the argument, the third outcome is that no real decision is reached and the argument still preceeds. In the reading they said that an argument it is like a debate but also that you need to think carefully before, during, and after an argument so that you are able to come out with positive feedback for both parties.

2. I think their second biggest problem was going to a society of women engineering and asked them to be secretarys. In todays times even for other fields man or woman dominated that is extremely taboo. People should think before they walk on thin ice. Like in the reading they should of took time to think of what they wanted to ask. If they were thinking of getting some woman to do some secretarial work they should of gone to a deparment that would of gladly accepted the job.

1. I think an arguement involves different sides, each wanting to express their belief/opinion, hoping that in the end their belief is understood and accepted. In one of my classes last year one of my teachers expressed the importance of arguement. Now that I think about it, it was from the book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni. If we don't have arguements, we don't have good ideas. If people sit and let only one or a few express what the believe is correct, then a group is not exploring all avenues of the solution. I find that challenging others, but in a productive and respectable way, can help cover all areas and at times. I'm currently a team leader of an EPICS team. I remember my first semester on the team I was afraid to speak up. We were making an adventure flash game to get young girls involved in engineering. In the game there was a group of guys they called by a name that was somewhat racist. I was afraid to speak up in the group, but finally expressed my concern. They all disagreed with me, but I calmly expressed my concern. The day of the Idea to Product Competition, the team presented. I was watching our chosen speakers present and they expressed the term I had warned them about. When it was time for the judges to ask questions and give comments, one of the judges was turned off by the use of the racial slur. I believe that argument helps you avoid problems that could possibly happen also.

2. I believe their second biggest problem was preparation. I believe that if they had sit down and discussed what would be expressed to the women engineers they would have realized what problems could arise. I also believe they could have prepared by talking to a woman engineer from the group to get her input on how they should approach the group. I believe that you if you prepare, you will have a better chance of forseeing problems and avoidng comments that could possibly be rude and offensive. Not to bring up my EPICS team again, but I see people make candid commments in their final presentation. EPICS involves using engineering to help the community. We have even heard teams call their clients vegetables, say that their comments are not important, and so on. I don't think people say such things on purpose, but I believe that they did not plan out what they were exactly going to say, in the end, lost their goal during the presentation.

Question 1
My definition for an argument is when two people debate a certain topic in a civilized manner and try to come to some middle ground or one convinces the other that their viewpoint has more credibility. My definition is similar to the one they portrayed in the reading in that both are about convincing people of your viewpoint using the best structured approach possible, but also different in that my definition leaves some middle ground for debate. Also my definition is different from that in the book in that the book thinks an argument is only for conveying your viewpoint in the most structured way possible with the end result being the audience is convinced of whatever viewpoint is being offered. The book wants a very structured, researched approach that seems too rigid in order to have the flexibility my definition offers for an argument.

Question 2
Their second biggest problem was that they did not understand their audience. I know the book talks about this a little bit, but I truly believe that it was definitely their second biggest problem. The reason being that they were speaking to an organization of women engineering, not women wanting to be secretaries, women that were engineers and should have been held at the same level of knowledge as the other men in their own group. If they had been smart enough to realize that they needed some women in their group, they should have been smart enough to realize the intelligence level associated with SWE.

1) When i think of the word argument, what comes to mind is the communication and debate between two parties over a specific idea or subject. Often times, from my experience, the debate generally goes nowhere due to the stubbornness o the two sides, but when it does go somewhere it's usually an agreement on some type of middle ground. My definition differs in that they feel that arguments are often structured and often result in one viewpoint ousting the other. Arguments an be structured in a sense, but I don't see how you can make structure out of something as organic as communication (there are to many invisible threads to account for). Also as mentioned earlier, most of the arguments I've seen or been in result in a middle round agreement or little to no agreement at all. The viewpoint of on party overriding that of another does not happen as often as desired

2) The main thing that destroyed Walter's group was that they wanted the Women in the group just to have women present. They had no real plan as to what the women would do once they joined the group...they never really took the women joining the group seriously so thy didn't take presenting the idea to them seriously. They went into the meeting/presentation and created a job for the women on the spot and it backfired on them...funny stuff

My personal opinion about argument is that: Argument is a way of bringing people with different ideas to the subject of interest and trying to persuade other people having different ideas so that both sides can reach a common ground.
I believe my idea is similar to the text as how to bring people of different ideas to decide on how to run something. In the text, it gives us idea of how the citizen of Athens has come about to take part in public conversation to decide how the city was run.
However, the text emphasizes more toward explaining that argument is about persuading other to agree with certain idea only.

I think the second problem would be lack of common interest. Walter’s group does not have any idea what the woman really interested if they were to join their group. Instead, they just show them what Walter’s group really wants from SWE. (Which is in this case just merely to have more woman)
However I believe if Walter’s group has a good idea of their audience’s interest, and presents to them what good it will do the SWE if they join the team, the result will not be as bad.

1) An argument is when 2 people disagree about something, and they each try to convince the other about it. I'm kind of confused about this, because it doesn't really come out and give a formal definition of argument, but rhetoric would probably be defined as any aspect of the way you try to persuade something of your viewpoint. These aspects could be your words, the medium you are using, the order of things you are presenting, where and when you are presenting, and to whom your are presenting. My definition lines up with the persuasion side of it, but the methods of persuasion are not alluded to. The definition of rhetoric that they use is much more thorough.

2) Lack of organization is probably their second biggest problem. The authors allude to this, and the fact that they don't have a specific purpose is because of lack of organization. They should clearly practice a presentation before they go and give it. This was probably a recurring theme throughout their project since they probably thought their problem was simply that Walter said the wrong thing.

1. When I think of the word "argument", I think of a debate between at least two parties with opposing views on a subject which they want the other to be persuaded to their side. The excerpt defines an argument to be structured in order to persuade with the use of rhetoric. The difference between the two is that I don't see it as having to be structured or use rhetoric. I think an argument can easily start at any moment.

2. I think their second biggest problem might have been that they hadn't thought about the larger context of the meeting. Like they said in the excerpt, they didn't think about what its like to be a woman in the field of engineering. If they even thought a little bit about that, they could easily have changed the outcome of this meeting.

Question 1

Argument to me is defined as a statement posed and held by one party as being true or correct in a specific context, but is provided in a way that is open to debate and discussion. I agree with what the text says about arguments, as far as needing tact and thoughtfulness in shaping and presenting arguments. I think, when presenting an argument, you need to strike a balance between having sound technical or material knowledge of the subject you are arguing about, and being flexible enough to accept other peoples' ideas and viewpoints. Also, I like how the text hammers out the point that the audience, or the reciever, of your communication is extremely important

Question 2

I think the groups second biggest problem, aside from what was said in the text, was a lack of respect for their audience. Anyone who respects women wouldn't let things like "secretary" and "memo-taking" be the first to roll off his/her tongue. In tying in to the first biggest problem, the team really didn't want more women on the team for anything other than eye candy. They didn't think about what a woman engineer could have brought to the meetings aside from a pretty smile provacative clothing. Therefore, they failed miserably in their communication process.

1. My definition of the term argument is the difference in views between two or more people expressed verbally. In my opinion, most arguments are settled when the two sides either find common ground and agree on one point or they just agree to disagree and realize they have different viewpoints. The excerpt seems to believe that arguments are structured and refers back to Ancient Greece and the use of rhetoric. They state that one argument is usually stronger than another, and that argument will usually win over the other party. I disagree because I rarely see this happening, but then again it depends on what is being argued about. If it is something that someone truly believes, than its quite hard to change their actual beliefs.

2. I think the groups' second largest problem was their reasoning for wanting the women. Sure, they could have told the women many things to try and convince them to work on their project, but in the end their intentions were no different than what they said - they just wanted females in the group. If they honestly cared enough about their feelings, then I dont think they would have said what they did in the first place.

My definition is that an argument is a communication method in which a speaker attempts to persuade their audience by presenting information, and have that audience respond in kind. This mirrors the Greek example in which speechmakers attempted to persuade their audience to do or think certain things. I believe mine differs in that it also emphasizes the need for response, because a one sided argument is no argument at all. Response may not be immediate, but if there is no response at all then the argument has been ineffective.

In my opinion, their second biggest problem was a lack of tact. You can work like mad developing in-depth solutions to every potential problem that may arise when you communicate, but you will not get them all. Some common sense, and some simple deduction, would have made Walter's group not place their feet in their mouths so eloquently. They wanted something, a good rule of thumb is to no offend those who have what you want. If their biggest problem was lack of specific purpose, than a lack of being able to argue that purpose effectively was their second biggest obstacle.

1. The word argument sometimes has a negative connotation associated with it, however this is not the situation in this context. Argument means simply a case. Arguments are normally well thought out sequences of ideas which provide a strong case for a specific purpose. If, for example, someone received a parking ticket on campus, he or she has a chance to appeal the ticket and provide an argument (coincidentally this argument could include arguing, in the most negative form of the word). This way of defining argument is similar in the sense that it means a compelling case with premeditation over the ideas. However it differs slightly because of the more strict outline that is given in order to produce an argument. I believe the ideas presented are all logical steps in thinking about a specific task, therefore do not need to be stated explicitly. The straight-forward "plug and chug" method defined cannot be perfect for every scenario, although it covers most.

2. The second biggest problem can be summarized as a mixture of a few of the points mentioned in the article. After a lack of a specific purpose, Walter never thought about how the first meeting was going to go. On the track team from my high school, an hour of the practice the day before a race would be spent in a sort of meditative state. We would all lay on the ground with light music playing and the scent of peppermint in the air (which Runner's World magazine claims boosts your performance), visualizing every moment of the race the next day. Although this is not a perfect analogy, Walter could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he just visualized what was going to happen and how he was going to handle things. He would have been able to realize that they would ask such a question and would be prepared for it. Most likely the reason for his disrespectful answer was because he did not have an idea of what he was going to say, so he just said the first thing that came to his mind.

My definition of argument would be a monologue or dialogue in which one tries to persuade another's opinion regarding a certain topic. I do not feel as though this differs from the information presented in the Compose, Design, Advocate excerpt.

I believe that their second biggest problem arises from the fact that they failed to identify their purpose. Since they didn't do this, they could not have been prepared to properly present their ideas.

1. I believe an argument is described as a discussion between two or more people in which a specific opinion of a subject cannot be determined. This is very different from the way described in excerpt one. My definition is a more personal account of what is discussed in this article which describes this on a communicational level.
2. They did not plan what they were going to say. Walter and his group knew that they needed women, but did not plan a speech or prepare how to answer questions from the crowd they would be entering. Had they taken the time to do this, they might have come up with a better idea than 'we need secretaries!'