0
There are two possible scenarios:
- You have no direct evidence, or
- There is no direct evidence.
Taking the second scenario first, ('there is no direct evidence) we can only base our argument on clear reasoning and authoritative external references.
At the outset consider the various alternatives and logically deal with them. In so doing, those views which are not valid will be dismissed, leaving the way clear for you to develop your argument.
Your presentation should only include information that is sound and data that is appropriate. Helpful examples, analogies, and maybe an illustration or two will help your audience will grasp and be able to accept the points you are making.
At all times you must take into account what the other person(s) already know, or what they presumably would know. Build on what they know and accept. In this way your discourse will have solid foundations. At all times approach the subject at your audience's level of understanding. Don't talk 'over their heads', nor undervalue their intelligence.
Pepper your argument with, 'it would seem', 'therefore it would be logical to conclude that' etc. Don't be dogmatic about matters where you have no facts. Lead them and encourage them to think things through with you. Make it a 'collaborative' task. Take them with you on your journey!
Sometimes it is necessary to pursue arguments at length to their logical conclusions. In this way foolish arguments will reveal themselves and sound arguments will be even more readily received. Be sure to get the audience personally involved in the practical application of the points you wish to make. If they can see that your argument has real merit, and is not just an exercise in intellectual gymnastics, the more likely they will be to agree with you.
-----------------------------------------------
First scenario (i.e. 'You' have no direct evidence!):
If you, personally, have no direct evidence to support your line of reasoning, you may be on very shaky ground! At the outset you should make it clear that you are only discussing 'possibilities', and then proceed as suggested above. Given that you have no direct evidence, you will have to be very careful to be fair to all viewpoints.
Doubtless you can construct a case for one line of reasoning to be more likely than another. But, depending on the nature of the your role and that of the other parties, you may have to admit that you, personally, cannot be certain, and that further investigation (on your part!) will be necessary before you can give any unequivocal view on the matter.
Your audience will appreciate your candour. And will be more likely to hear you out when you have something more substantial to present to them.
What else can I help you with?
Why would a writer use logos in a persuassive argument?
A writer would use logos in a persuasive argument to appeal to logic and reason. By presenting facts, evidence, and logical reasoning, the writer aims to convince the audience that their argument is sound and credible. Using logos can help establish the writer's credibility and build a stronger case for their position.
Which question would best helpna writer choose evidence to support a claim?
"Which pieces of evidence directly address the main argument or claim being made?" This question will guide the writer in selecting evidence that is relevant and supportive of the claim being presented.
What are the different types of fallacies and can you provide examples of each?
There are several types of fallacies, including ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument), straw man (misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack), appeal to authority (using an authority figure as evidence in an argument), and slippery slope (arguing that one thing will lead to another with no evidence). An example of ad hominem would be "You can't trust his opinion on politics because he's a terrible person."
How can you approach an argument for which you have no direct evidence?
If we look at astronomers, they approached "an argument" through using theories. A theory is an idea, an educated guess gained from observations, experience, and an ability to challenge usually accepted thinking. So, early thinkers challenged and hypothesized:the earth was not flatthe earth revolves around the sunthere were 9 planetsonly recently, in 2006, Pluto was reclassed -- challenging the usually accepted thinking!rain ultimately comes from / begins with the oceans (water cycle)climate warming existshumans cause most of climate changesSo think about what your theory might be if you have no direct evidence. Back up your theory with your ideas of what the facts might be-- IF you could get to any direct evidence.An example:Do you think earthworms live below the soil layer?You cannot dig to the center of the earth, so you cannot prove that earthworms don't live in the earth. You know earthworms like soil. They break down debris to make soil.You know there is rock below soil. (bedrock) You know the inner core of the earth is hot.Your theory: Earthworms cannot live in rock beneath the soil layer because that area would not give them food and water they need to survive. If the living environment is too hot, earthworms would shrivel and die just like when they stay too long on a sidewalk on a hot day.Now, expand on your theory, giving ideas you have about why earthworms would only live in Earth's soil layer.
What is a counterargument?
A counterargument is any evidence that undermines an argument. Imagine somebody saying that the UK is the best society - the counter argument would be that it lacks a healthy measure of social mobility or that life chances are still dominated by class origins or that it is too backward looking and not future oriented.
Would a receipt for the purchase of the murder weapon be considered direct or circumstantial evidence?
The receipt would be direct evidence as to who is the owner of the weapon, and circumstantial evidence as to who is the murderer.
Which type of evidence would support the author's thesis?
Evidence such as statistical data, expert opinions, case studies, and direct quotes from relevant sources that align with and strengthen the author's argument would support the thesis. Additionally, primary sources and research studies that provide concrete examples and back up the main points of the thesis would be valuable forms of evidence.
In the is there a god argument which side of the argument has more evidence to support it?
No, there is no logical argument that is more supported or logically sound than an atheist's. If there was, it likely would be well known.
What sources of historical evidence would most help the historian form a historical argument to answer this question?
Primary sources such as written records, letters, official documents, and artifacts from the time period in question would be crucial for a historian to form a strong historical argument. Additionally, archaeological remains, oral histories, and other contemporary accounts would provide valuable evidence to support the argument. Comparing and analyzing different types of evidence can help to create a well-rounded and robust historical interpretation.
Why does using evidence help present an argument?
By presenting evidence upfront, you are showing "factual" basis for your argument. Without evidence, to proceed in a case would be like your "word" vs my "word." In Legal matters, there are too many crazies out there just arguing about "opinions" and there are probably zero grounds for the case in the first place.
How would you refute an author's claim with a counterclaim?
To refute a claim with a counterclaim, you must support your argument with evidence to ensure the validity of your claims.
Why would a writer use logos in a persuassive argument?
A writer would use logos in a persuasive argument to appeal to logic and reason. By presenting facts, evidence, and logical reasoning, the writer aims to convince the audience that their argument is sound and credible. Using logos can help establish the writer's credibility and build a stronger case for their position.
What is a reasonable argument?
A reasonable argument is one that is logical, supported by evidence, and free from fallacies or emotional manipulation. It should be based on sound reasoning and relevant information, leading to a conclusion that is justified and persuasive. In essence, a reasonable argument is one that can withstand critical scrutiny and is open to being evaluated and potentially revised based on new evidence or counterarguments.
What is one of the most effective ways to back up an argument about a work of literature?
One of the most effective ways to back up an argument about a work of literature would be to use evidence from that book. Someone could pull quotes from the book, and find other evidence from separate sources.
What is a verbal or oral response to an argument presenting an opposite viewpoint?
A counterargument would be a verbal or oral response to an argument presenting an opposite viewpoint. It aims to challenge or dispute the original argument by offering differing evidence or reasoning.
What an non-example of evidence?
An example of a non-example of evidence would be personal opinions or anecdotes that are not backed up by facts or data. This type of information does not provide objective support for an argument or claim.
What is an example for name calling fallacy?
An example of name-calling fallacy would be if someone dismissed an argument by calling the person making the argument a "liar" without providing any evidence to disprove the argument itself. This type of fallacy aims to attack the person rather than addressing the actual content of the argument.
