The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
According to the renowned essayist Paul Graham, differing individuals resort to various techniques to disagree the opposing viewpoints whether it is contradicting the speaker, questioning his credentials, criticizing his tone or even name calling. Yet, none is more effective than an argument cogent enough to convince the opponents. The statement contends that the best test of any argument is its ability to convince people with an opposing viewpoint. While, the strength of an argument can be evaluated in terms of its persuading power, convincing others is not merely dependent upon the merit of the argument.
Admittedly, as delineated by Graham’s hierarchy of disengagement, the most powerful argument is that which explicitly refutes the central idea of the opposing viewpoint, thus leaving no scope for the latter to prevail. Consider, for example, a criminal trial in a court where the prosecutor argues that the bloody gloves retrieved from the murder site belonged to the defendant. The defendant’s lawyer refutes the allegation by showing that the gloves were too small for the defendant’s hands, thereby leaving no room for the prosecutor to disagree. Moreover, to convince an opponent, an individual must not only corroborate his argument with sound examples and reasoning but also analyse it from different angles in different settings to rectify any fallacies. All of this ultimately serves to strengthen the argument. For example, to convince his detractors about heliocentric nature of the solar system, Galileo had to back his theory with undeniable experiments, observations and reasoning. Thus, the ability of an argument to persuade someone is indeed an indication of its strength.
However, convincing people with opposing viewpoints is not solely a matter of an argument’s strength but is also stringent upon the nature of the people engaged. As Mark Twain rightly puts out, ‘It is difficult to win an argument against an intelligent person, but impossible against a fool’. The opposing lot may not have required intellectual capacity to comprehend the logic of an argument. Sometimes a sound argument may not suffice to convince them; whereas, in some instances they may find a fallacious idea far too convincing. Similarly, some of the people’s views might be so deeply engrossed in their minds that they become too biased, even stubborn, to consider any contrasting argument. For example, people practising immoral cult rituals are often too blinded to listen to the contrary arguments, let alone agree. Moreover, despite a weak argument a debater can still convince people by employing some psychological tactics, such as conceding to some of the oppenents’ other views in order pass on his argument to them.
Therefore, while the ability of an argument to win over others’ opinion can signify its strength, it is not the best test always. Yet, it is safe to say that the best test of an argument is to listen to opposing opinions and reconcile them for the reason that such an argument ensures growth and prevents impasse. For instance, the 19th century Physicists argued about the wave nature of the light. However, some later observations defied this argument. To address the issue, Einstein and Planck argued in favour of the particles nature of light while still accommodating the previous wave argument, resulting in the modern theory of dual-nature of light. Furthermore, when people argue with the empathy to listen to others’ perspectives, they get insights into their own argument which helps them to develop it thoroughly and further strengthen it.
In conclusion, the ability of an argument to convince its opponent is indicative of its strength. However, the criterion is not always objective as convincing opponents also depends upon their intellect and nature apart from the argument’s soundness. Moreover, the best test of an argument is its ability to consider opposing perspectives and reconcile them to ensure growth as well as self-development of tthe argument itself.
- Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species despite the expense to humans in effort time and financial well being Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts especially at a great cost in money an 92
- Leaders are created by the demands that are placed on them. 66
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts 66
- Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education. 83
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 547, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ous idea far too convincing. Similarly, some of the people’s views might be so deeply engro...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 960, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...hological tactics, such as conceding to some of the oppenents’ other views in order pass on...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 521, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'particles'' or 'particle's'?
Suggestion: particles'; particle's
...tein and Planck argued in favour of the particles nature of light while still accommodati...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, whereas, while, apart from, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 91.0 58.6224719101 155% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3415.0 2235.4752809 153% => OK
No of words: 636.0 442.535393258 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36949685535 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02185627292 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9804366377 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 313.0 215.323595506 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49213836478 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 1060.2 704.065955056 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6508799171 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.481481481 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5555555556 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11111111111 5.21951772744 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.575368505965 0.243740707755 236% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179856022112 0.0831039109588 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.149993146758 0.0758088955206 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.375824630216 0.150359130593 250% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0676739285839 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 176.0 100.480337079 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.