- In this clip, the aim of argument that should have been deployed is arguing to convince.
2. They violated this aim of argument because most of it was satire rather than trying to make valid points towards their viewpoints.
3. The ways these speakers violate each criteria of being a reasonable reasoner are:
- Their responsible reasoning was not well informed. They didn’t seem to actually be very knowledgeable about the subject, and the debate was not very well informed.
- They were both not at all open to constructive criticism from each other. They were both right no matter what and not open to being persuaded at all or listening to other opinions.
- They did not consider the audience. They both argued for their personal examples and not the scenarios of others, and began to have a 1 on 1 conversation.
- They did not understand the argument’s context. They were focused on one example and not the overall issue regarding the death tax.
4. I believe both the Stevens disregard for sticking to an aim or using the criteria for responsible reasoning led to the clip being a bit of a satire mess that was hard to understand or follow.
These new criteria, aims, and note taking examples will help me with assignment one by giving me an outline on how to structure my analysis in my essay. I know to know my audience, how to get my point across, and how to take notes before i write my essay to structure my thoughts.
Travel 