Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Rated 5 out of 5 by from The Wisdom of History We completed this course and loved it.Are now sharing it with our grandson who loves history and graduates from high school next year.
Date published: 2020-06-16
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Very Practical Course I enjoyed this course so much I bought Professor Zarefsky's book "The Practice of Argumentation". For someone who has never taken a class on Argumentation, I thought this course was an effective introduction. I also thought David Zarefsky is an engaging instructor. My only complaint about the course is that I wish he would have spent a bit more time on some of the more difficult ideas, for example categorical syllogisms and inductive/deductive reasoning. Overall, I wish I had taken this course much earlier in my life.
Date published: 2020-02-03
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Resolution: A basic effective reasoning course will be a high school requirement with more in-depth exploration in a required undergraduate college course. This will serve as a counter to the level of antagonism and talking past one-another that is widely observed within the current zeitgeist of the country.
Date published: 2020-01-03
Rated 1 out of 5 by from presenter is not interesting i could not finish watching this because the presenter did not measure up to my expectation.
Date published: 2019-05-23
Rated 4 out of 5 by from An excellent course with one major flaw This is in almost all respects a truly great course. Professor Zarefsky thoroughly explains the components of arguments, and how to identify them and assemble them into arguments. He also explains the various kinds of support for claims, such as comparisons and cause and effect. One glaring flaw in this otherwise superb course is, in the next-to-last lecture, on argumentation in the public arena, the professor’s creation of what he calls “liberal and conservative presumptions.” He doesn’t define them, but it’s fairly clear that he’s talking about liberals and conservatives. And he comes down clearly on one side, saying that it “regards human nature as basically good, venerates reason,” etc., whereas the other “believes that human nature is not necessarily good or selfless, and regards reform as often shortsighted” (Course Guidebook, p. 97). He might as well have just come out and said that liberals are good, smart people, and conservatives are not, but instead he cloaked that message in verbal gobbledegook. But that’s just one lecture that I had major problems with, and aside from that, it is a very worthwhile course.
Date published: 2019-05-15
Rated 1 out of 5 by from extremely pedantic It almost seems like the lecturer uses difficult terminologies on purpose to sound smart when during the teaching of a course. As if he prepared the speech and beforehand and used thesaurus to sound more complex. In result such an interesting to me subject became boring and uninteresting. The 30 minute lectures feel like 3 hours, tiresome, and I tend to stop the lectures half way because I become bored and can't stay focused any longer when unnecessarily have to interpret difficult words to distinguish what was said. I took a free course on Coursera.org Arguments from duke university, and it was much much more interesting and I was able to attend for hours at a time because it was simple and fun. This course doesn't deliver that quality. it's unnecessarily over-pedantic.
Date published: 2019-05-09
Rated 5 out of 5 by from An informative short course on Argumentation I have both the 1st ed., and the 2nd ed. I’ve used this course to refine how I interact with others on various topics. I am now in a better position to assess when an argument is underway and how to respond, including when to agree to disagree. What I like about this 2nd ed., is the lecturer’s inclusion of the Stephen Toulmin approach to argumentation. I’ve read and re-read Toulmin’s “The Uses of Argument” and “An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed.” This course has helped me better understand the Toulmin model as well as a few other books on Rhetoric. Overall, I highly recommend this course for those who want to know when and how to participate effectively in discussions of various types, especially discussions that sometimes turn into arguments.
Date published: 2019-04-15
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Notes are highlighted on screen. I completed the course. The course was great. I appreciated the professor’s expertise. The course improved my reasoning. I was reflective of my past decisions and I was able to become more aware of my good and bad decisions based on honest assessment regarding the discovery of good reasoning that course highlighted. A five stars course in my book.
Date published: 2019-03-16
  • y_2020, m_9, d_20, h_15
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.12
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_6, tr_115
  • loc_en_CA, sid_4294, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.1
  • CLOUD, getReviews, 3.97ms
  • REVIEWS, PRODUCT
Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning
Course Trailer
Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric
1: Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric

We will examine argumentation in its classical sense-as the study of effective reasoning. This introductory lecture will relate argumentation to the field of rhetoric and consider how argumentation is ethical. With a clear understanding of basic terms, we will preview the directions we will take in the course.

32 min
Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation
2: Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation

Argumentation is a means of decision-making, and there are several assumptions that we make when we use it. This lecture will focus on five key assumptions.

30 min
Formal and Informal Argumentation
3: Formal and Informal Argumentation

This lecture will review the defining features of deduction and induction and will summarize three major forms of deductive reasoning: categorical, conditional, and disjunctive. The lecture will conclude by emphasizing why informal reasoning is involved in contemporary study of argumentation.

30 min
History of Argumentation Studies
4: History of Argumentation Studies

The study of informal argumentation can be traced to the beginnings of rhetoric in ancient Greece. During the Renaissance, the subject matter of rhetoric was divided, with argumentation assigned to philosophy. Formal logic was held to be the highest form of reasoning, and argumentation tried to imitate it. Since the mid-20th century, theorists have identified weaknesses in the formal-logic model a...

30 min
Argument Analysis and Diagramming
5: Argument Analysis and Diagramming

This lecture examines how controversies begin and how the process of arguing produces individual arguments. It will consider the claim as the most basic part of the argument and identify types of claims. Then it will present the structure of an argument: a claim, evidence for it, an inference linking the evidence to the claim, and a warrant justifying that inference.

30 min
Complex Structures of Argument
6: Complex Structures of Argument

The diagram presented in Lecture 5 will help us understand a simple argument structure, but most arguments are embedded in complex structures. A claim in one part of the argument may be evidence in another, and subsidiary claims are joined to support a main claim or resolution. Mapping and analyzing these structures offers considerable advantages, and these will be reviewed.

30 min
Case Construction-Requirements and Options
7: Case Construction-Requirements and Options

The complex structure of argument discussed in Lecture 6 can be termed a case: the pattern of arguments used to support a claim. In assembling a case, arguers must be sure to address all the issues raised by the claim in the particular situation. Addressing the issues will satisfy an initial burden of proof. In meeting these requirements, arguers have choices about what arguments to use and how to...

30 min
Stasis-The Heart of the Controversy
8: Stasis-The Heart of the Controversy

Stasis refers to the focal point of dispute, the point at which contending positions meet. It is determined by the choices that advocates make about what to stipulate and what to contest. The first decision to be made in responding to a case is what the point of stasis will be. This lecture will illustrate the concept, which is drawn from ancient theories of rhetoric. Finally, using the concept of...

30 min
Attack and Defense I
9: Attack and Defense I

This lecture and the next will consider the processes of refuting and rebuilding cases. Attacks on a case achieve the best possible resolution of a controversy. Decisions to be made in planning an attack include which arguments to attack, at which parts of the argument to focus the attack, and what type of attack to develop. These choices can be understood best if they are examined systematically.

31 min
Attack and Defense II
10: Attack and Defense II

This lecture continues the discussion of attacking arguments by focusing on a second set of choices: those related to the arrangement and presentation of the attacks, then the focus shifts to defending and rebuilding arguments. The lecture will consider the basic strategic options of the defense, and highlight the most significant choices. The lecture also will consider methods of refutation and h...

31 min
Language and Style in Argument
11: Language and Style in Argument

This lecture completes a series that addresses the development of arguments into cases and the dynamics of controversy created by the presentation of a case. Here, the specific concern is with choices related to language and presentational style, how language is a factor, and how the presentation of an argument is part of its content.

30 min
Evaluating Evidence
12: Evaluating Evidence

With this lecture we turn to argument appraisal and focus on individual arguments. We begin with the evidence supporting an argument. It must be agreed to by the arguers for a meaningful discussion to proceed. Evidence can be categorized in many ways, but we will focus on examples, statistics, tangible objects, testimony, and social consensus.

31 min
Reasoning from Parts to Whole
13: Reasoning from Parts to Whole

The next six lectures focus on inferences, the most complex parts of an argument, and how they determine the argument scheme to be used. Six common inference patterns will be reviewed. This lecture considers inferences from example, which are used to relate specific cases to general claims and to apply general statements to specific cases. The lecture will also identify common errors.

30 min
Reasoning with Comparisons
14: Reasoning with Comparisons

A common form of inference is that like things should be treated alike. This is reasoning from analogy. This lecture describes types of analogies and tests for this reasoning with comparisons. It will consider why logicians often consider analogy the weakest type of inference, while rhetoricians often consider it the strongest. We will address two uses of the argument from analogy: the judicial an...

30 min
Establishing Correlations
15: Establishing Correlations

The focus of this lecture is on inferences from sign. Sign inferences establish the relationship between two factors so one can be predicted from knowledge of the other. Sign arguments are used to infer the unknown from the known, to predict outcomes, and to rely on the judgment of expert authorities. The lecture concludes with pitfalls to avoid in making sign inferences.

30 min
Moving from Cause to Effect
16: Moving from Cause to Effect

Causal inferences assert that one factor has influence over another. Influence must be inferred because it cannot be observed. The lecture will consider meanings of the concept of causation, purposes for which causal arguments are used, and methods that have been used to infer the existence of causal influence. The lecture will conclude by discussing factors that can undermine a causal inference.

31 min
Commonplaces and Arguments from Form
17: Commonplaces and Arguments from Form

This lecture considers inferences based on social knowledge and inferences that resemble deductions but are not. Commonplaces are beliefs or judgments that an audience generally accepts as being true. Often these come in pairs of seemingly opposed terms with each term sometimes being preferred. Dilemmas, arguments from hypothesis, and arguments from probabilities are examples of inferences that ar...

30 min
Hybrid Patterns of Inference
18: Hybrid Patterns of Inference

This lecture will examine three hybrid patterns: reasoning with rules, reasoning about values, and dissociation.

31 min
Validity and Fallacies I
19: Validity and Fallacies I

The central question of this and the next lecture is: What makes a good argument? The answer is validity. In formal reasoning, validity is a matter of structure unrelated to content. In informal reasoning, it means following patterns that have led to good results and avoided fallacies. This lecture examines errors specific to each pattern of inference, and then considers errors of vacuity ("e...

30 min
Validity and Fallacies II
20: Validity and Fallacies II

This lecture continues the discussion of general errors in reasoning that was begun in Lecture 19 with the treatment of vacuity. We examine deficiencies in relevance and discuss fallacies. The lecture concludes by reviewing two challenges to understanding fallacies. One suggests that arguments are valid or fallacious depending on their context; the other suggests that fallacies should be understoo...

30 min
Arguments between Friends
21: Arguments between Friends

The final group of lectures moves into examining the practice of argumentation in society. The organizing principle is the concept of spheres of argument, sets of expectations that provide contexts for arguing. This lecture concerns the personal sphere. Dialogue is the mode of discourse, and participants seek to resolve their own disagreements. The ideal of a critical discussion is proposed. Pract...

31 min
Arguments among Experts
22: Arguments among Experts

Argumentation takes place where there are field-specific patterns of inference or appraisal. Argument fields can be defined by subject matter, orientation, or worldview. Drawing on examples from law, science, management, ethics, and religion, this lecture considers how the nature of argumentation is affected by the field in which it takes place. The lecture also considers interfield disputes and h...

30 min
Public Argument and Democratic Life
23: Public Argument and Democratic Life

The public sphere is the place for arguments about matters of interest to people as citizens, for example, deliberations about public policy. There are several ways to devise arguments that can appeal simultaneously to different political presumptions. A robust public sphere to negotiate tensions inherent in democratic argument is crucially important, and this lecture speculates on the current sta...

31 min
The Ends of Argumentation
24: The Ends of Argumentation

This lecture considers two meanings of the term "end." It re-examines, from Lecture 5, how controversies begin by studying the conditions under which they end, but most of the lecture concerns "end" in the sense of the larger purposes that are served by the process of argumentation. Argumentation helps achieve the goals of a democratic society by cultivating the skills of criti...

31 min
David Zarefsky

It's my belief that the most ethical way to go about influencing other people is through argumentation, which respects their individuality, and respects their freedom, and seeks their free assent.

ALMA MATER

Northwestern University

INSTITUTION

Northwestern University

About David Zarefsky

Dr. David Zarefsky is the Owen L. Coon Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University, where he has taught for over 30 years. He earned his B.S., master's degree, and Ph.D. from Northwestern University. From 1988 through 2000, he served as the Dean of the School of Speech.

A nationally recognized authority on rhetoric and forensics, he is a past president of the National Communication Association (NCA) and recipient of the Distinguished Scholar Award in 1994 and the Distinguished Service Award in 2001. On no fewer than 13 occasions, his outstanding lecturing skills have been recognized by the inclusion of his name on Northwestern's Associated Student Government Honor Roll for Teaching.

Dr. Zarefsky has authored five books, edited three more, and published over 50 scholarly articles and reviews. He received the 1986 National Communication Association's Winans-Wichelns Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Rhetoric and Public Address for his book President Johnson's War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History and the same award again in 1991 for Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate.

Also By This Professor