GS100 (5299)- ACADEMIC WRITING

Submitted by: Werner B. Galliofen Jr

Master of Education in Teaching Filipino

Activity 1

Explain well how to build an argument.

➢ It is very important to know the basic skills in learning and building an

argument. Learning the basics is a starting pack to go beyond the idea of an
excellent argument. Argument is an art of stating reasons from a single to
multiple idea (I stated my own words in definition). From the given
understanding what argument is, here is my take after I have read a reliable
source in my research.

To build an argument, one must have to try a basic one. These basic skills are divided
into five (5) common points. Structure, Relevance, Acceptability, Sufficiency, Rebuttal.
(1) The essential structural requirements of a well-formed argument must be met by a
strong argument. “Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that
contradict the conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion” ,
therefore the communication include at least one reason to support the conclusion as
being true, if it doesn’t, then it’s not an argument — it’s merely an opinion. An
unsupported conclusion is an opinion; a conclusion supported by reasons is
an argument. Could the conclusion be understood as making the same claim as any of
the main premises? If this is the case, the argument is considered "circular" because
no additional evidence is provided to back up the conclusion. Since A, A follows. You
must determine if a premise may be understood as making the same claim as the
conclusion because no one will likely use the exact identical words in both the premise
and the conclusion.

(2) The justifications a communicator offers as part of their case must be pertinent to
the validity or truth of their conclusion or RELEVANT. “A premise is relevant if its
acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth
or merit of the conclusion. A premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides
no evidence for, or has no connection to the truth or merit of the conclusion” therefore, To
assess whether an argument violates the principle of Relevance, ask these two
questions: A. Does it increase your likelihood of accepting the conclusion as true if the
premise is accurate? If so, the premise probably applies. If the answer is no, the
premise is generally not important. B. Should accepting the reality of the conclusion
even if the premise were true be taken into account? If the answer is no, the premise
is most likely irrelevant. Jerry is taller than 6 feet. He must therefore be skilled at
basketball. "Avatar is a work of art. After all, it was the year's highest-grossing movie.

(3) A mature, thoughtful adult should be likely to accept the justifications a

communicator offers for his or her position. According to Damer, if a premise
satisfies the criteria for premise acceptability listed below, it should be
acceptable to a responsible, mature adult.

A. "A statement that is unquestionably true common knowledge."

B. "A statement supported by personal observation or experience."

C. either "undisputed eyewitness testimony" or "an undisputed claim from a

credible authority."

D. A modest assertion that appears to be a valid assumption given the context of

the argument.

By contrast, a premise should be rejected by a mature, rational adult if it meets

the following conditions of premise unacceptability:

A. "A claim that is in conflict with reliable information, a widely accepted

theory, or a reliable authority."

B. A statement that conflicts with one's personal experiences or observations.

 C. A assertion that is predicated on yet another unspoken but exceedingly
dubious premise.

When all of an argument's premises fulfill at least one acceptable criteria and
none of them meet an unacceptable requirement, the argument is said to meet
the acceptability principle.

(4) A communicator who makes an argument should offer arguments that are
convincing enough for the audience to accept the conclusion. “There must be a sufficient
number of relevant and acceptable premises of the appropriate kind and weight in order for an
argument to be good enough for us to accept its conclusion.”

Since it requires judgment, this principle is one of the most challenging to implement.
For what amounts to a "sufficient" quantity and weight of grounds to accept a
conclusion, there are no hard-and-fast rules. Two knowledgeable, well-intentioned
individuals are frequently prevented from reaching the same conclusion based on the
same body of accessible evidence because of divergent opinions regarding the
strength or sufficiency of an argument's premises.

The following inquiries can be used to determine whether an argument contravenes

the sufficiency principle:

A. Are the arguments presented strong enough to support their conclusion? If not,
the sufficiency principle is broken by the argument.

B. Is the premise supported by insufficient data or flawed causal reasoning? Some

premises offer evidence that is based on an insufficient sample size or
inaccurate data. Or the argumentant's personal experience or the experiences
of a select group of his or her acquaintances serve as the basis for the proof.
The assumption that A caused B even though the two occurrences were
unconnected may be the basis for the premise's flawed causal analysis.
(5) A good argument includes an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms

of the argument. “An argument cannot be a good one if it does not anticipate and effectively

rebut or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against it and the position that it supports…

A good arguer should be constantly mindful of the fact that an argument is not finished until one

has ‘finished off’ the criticisms and counterarguments.”

The Rebuttal principle can be broken in numerous ways by an argument. Instead of

providing strong rebuttals, argumentators frequently employ diversionary strategies.

For instance, arguments that misrepresent the critique, raise unimportant concerns as

a side issue, or turn to comedy or mockery are employing strategies that are obviously

ineffective in providing effective rebuttals. The same can be true of arguments that

disregard or reject the evidence that contradicts the side being supported. Finally,

some disputants attempt to sidestep responding to criticism by assaulting the critic.

Deepening:
Strengthening your own argument

The five aforementioned guidelines can be used to assess the arguments that others
provide to us. But how can we make our own arguments stronger when we create
them? Damer offers some recommendations for how to strengthen our arguments
using each principle.

1. Structure: Make sure to clearly state your conclusion and the reasons it is
supported, so that the reader can quickly identify and understand them. Make
sure your premises don't (a) conflict with one another or the conclusion (b) and
(c) don't (d) presuppose the veracity of the conclusion. Any important
presumptions you use should be made apparent.
 2. Relevance: Make sure all of the information you use to support your point is
pertinent. Remove anything that is not necessary. Avoid introducing irrelevant
premises in your argument.
3. Acceptability: Whenever possible, replace more contentious claims with less
contentious ones. If at all feasible, temper any categorical assertions to make
them more palatable. Use reasonable evidence and assumptions instead of
very dubious ones (for instance, "most politicians" rather than "all politicians").

4. Sufficiency: Keep including pertinent premises if they increase the quantity and
significance of the arguments supporting your conclusion. Ask yourself if the
arguments are compelling enough for your audience to accept your conclusion.
If a crucial premise is debatable, back it up with supporting arguments and
data.

5. Refutation/Rebuttal: In your rebuttal, be as thorough as is necessary. Some

arguments might just need to address one critique, but more contentious or
polarizing topics might call for many refutations. To lessen the impact of your
opponent's counterarguments, be upfront about the areas of your argument
that are weakest and take proactive steps to rectify them.

Sources:
1. https://medium.com/@ameet/the-5-principles-of-good-argument-
63d394ca3051
2. https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/construct-compelling-argument/
3. https://keystoliteracy.com/blog/teaching-basic-argument-writing-
components/

end of the assignment>>>wernergalliofenjr.maedinteachingfilipino