The arguments coined in the post are incredible and informative. It is argued that information is power and whoever has quality information is at a better position to effectively and confidently making logical arguments whether written or spoken. The foundation of formal academic writing is informed by conducting coherent research about a hypothesis. It is through the collection of relevant and reliable information that a scholar can effectively and logically articulate a statement of problem and thesis enhancing the credibility of the study. Evans arguments are undeniably true that validity or arguments in real-world applications depends on a speakers or writer’s mastery of content in the respective field and even beyond. People who are knowledgeable in a variety of field often have a high command. The quality of information is an integral component because it leverages a writer’s ability to articulate points in the most appropriate manner hence promoting a reader's ability understand critical perspectives.
Evans described limitation of biasness and its implications on the interpretation of arguments and opinions. Humans, as social beings, are inherently biased based on experiences, culture, social backgrounds, ethical principles, education, and literacy levels. It results in natural myside, the tendency to deduce propositions from personal perspectives (Stanovich " West, 2007). Despite the inherent biasness, scholars must acknowledge that every argument has limitations. I believe the inherent bias is the reason it is prudent for researchers to outline the assumptions and limitations of the study, especially for qualitative studies and arguments that exclusively rely on respondents’ opinions and perceptions. Equally, understanding the audience of an argument is key to minimizing risks of bias that may lead to a misinterpretation of information.
Response to Valerie Cameron
Logical thinking demands that an individual should critically and rationally engage in thought prior to making a conclusion. As stated by Cameron, reaching consensus may be quite tricky and challenging because the parties involved in the argument apply subjective, rather than objective, logic in an argument. A scholar may disagree to agree or express parallel viewpoints; however, an individual with a diverse experience about a topic under contention has the potential to influence the reasoning of other parties, provided they are rational and equally share a succinct understanding of similar sentiments. Essentially, reasoning that does not rely on substantive facts can derail even an intelligent argument, especially because of lack of information.
It is stated in the argument that emotions significantly influence the reasoning of an audience or arguing parties, which can be for the better or worse. This is a feasible argument but in formal academic writing and scholarly intellectual discourse. It is often challenging to integrate emotion because it is usually subjective and fails to hint the objective proposition. A speaker may find it challenging to incorporate emotions during formal argument discourse; however, in informal arguments, emotions are central to influencing reason and shaping the arguments. Emotions are subjectively interpreted, hence they are also susceptible to bias based on the experience, opinions, and perceptions of a reader. Nonetheless, deductive reasoning is invaluable because it helps logical thinkers to identify only acceptable and credible premises in an argument applying them based in the situations. It enhances critical thinking based strictly informed by expert knowledge in a discipline (Nosich, 2012). Further, deductive reasoning allows consensus in arguments and promotes constructive arguments and discussions. Despite the emotional appeals and bias in arguments, deductive reasoning can make a discussion and interpretation of a text constructive. Scholars, therefore, must embrace deductive reasoning as a most feasible strategy to engage in logical and well-reasoned intellectual discourse.
References
Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning To Think Things Through: A Guide To Critical Thinking Across The Curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
Stanovich, K. E., " West, R. F. (2007). Natural Myside Bias Is Independent Of Cognitive Ability. Thinking " Reasoning, 13(3), 225–247. https://doi-org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1080/13546780600780796
