Topic: Arguments

image_pdfimage_print

The book “So What?” gives a scenario about an employee asking his boss for a raise. The employee states his claim and gives reasons for why he should get this raise. He continues to give reasons and shows evidence that he deserves this raise. The book goes on to say that the employee’s argument would have been stronger if he would have given reasons and evidence in the beginning of his argument. The book also says an everyday argument might work when both the person arguing and the audience share a lot of background knowledge.

I thought that the last statement was interesting. The author’s were trying to say that if a person arguing and the audience share background knowledge, then there is more common ground for the argument meaning less room for assumption. This is just how I interpreted it, I might be way off. I think that this is true to an extent. I know that most people argue with the people closest to us (who share the most background knowledge). I argue with my parents and siblings all the time. For example, I might assume that my younger sister is faking that she is in pain just so she doesn’t have to help clean up, which will lead to an argument. Because I know her so well, I know that she doesn’t like cleaning up her messes and will try to get out of it, so I assume that she is faking that she is in pain. It is easier to argue with the people you are closest to because you share background knowledge.

Hopefully what I wrote made some sense…

2 thoughts on “Topic: Arguments

  1. I totally agree that it is easier to argue with someone you are closely related to. I argue with my siblings and have disagreements with my parents all the time (whenever I’m back home). But instead of, “it is easier to argue with the people you are closest to because you share background knowledge”, I believe that it’s easier to create an argument if you understand the topic and claim they are making. So example would be, 2 guys who share the background of knowing the game of basketball. Therefore, the 2 guys are able to create an argument about basketball, rather than a scientist claiming an argument about basketball and he doesn’t know much about it. Sorry if it’s confusing but I hope you get my point.

    • Yea I definitely see the point you are making, and it makes total sense. I had trouble figuring out what I was trying to say…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*