By definition, an argument is a reason, or a set of reasons, used to support or oppose an idea, however, it does not mean that an argument has to persuade someone. I feel strongly that an argument cannot be evaluated based on its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. Quite the opposite, I believe that what makes an argument the best is its (1) falsifiability, (2) ability to give another perspective for an opposing argument, and (3) its aptitude to remain cogent enough not to be refuted by aberrations.
First of all, falsifiability means that an argument should be formulated in such a way that counterargument could be given. In other words, to test an argument’s explicitness and lucidity it is necessary to find an opposing viewpoint which, being true, can show why this argument is wrong. If an argument cannot be falsified, it is vulnerable to be driven by prejudices and delusions. For example, such test of an argument's quality - originally proposed by Karl Popper - is widely used in science to demonstrate that scholars build their research on scientific theories rather than on their own firm beliefs. Hence, the test of an argument’s quality should be based on the criterion of an argument’s falsifiability rather than the number of people who firmly believe that it holds true.
Second, if the only motivation of an argument is to persuade someone with an opposing viewpoint, it tends to be monistic rather than pluralistic. To put it in other way, a monistic argument assumes that there is only one perspective to answer on any question, while a pluralistic one embraces many different viewpoints which can easily coexist without demeaning other ideas. To illustrate it in the simplest way, a monistic argument assumes that an opposing viewpoint is just “wrong”, so it has to be refuted, while a pluralistic one posits that the contrary opinion is “different” and is necessary to fully answer any question. For instance, nowadays the establishment of a level-playing field for minorities is a burning issue since usually their perspective on public policy is not taken into consideration. Hence, statements made by politicians about the need to introduce a policy should be evaluated based on to what extent they account for opposing viewpoints of minorities, rather than on the ability to convince them.
Even though the arguments above assume that to test the quality of a statement its Even though the arguments above assume that to test the quality of statement its persuasiveness should not be taken into consideration, sometimes the ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint could a boon rather than a bane. An opposite view can either be speculative in the sense that it uses as evidence some aberrations and outliers, or even worse be deliberately deceptive, like malicious hoaxes or spear phishing. This is the case of misinformation that nowadays surrounds such topics of high social value as vaccination campaigns. Hence, the ability of arguments about the necessity of vaccination to convince the exposed to misinformation is indeed a good test of their quality. These arguments should have the aptitude to remain cogent enough not to be refuted by aberrations and other speculations.
To conclude, I believe that the ability of an argument to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint is not the best test of its quality. Such characteristics of an argument as falsifiability, the ability to be pluralistic and take into consideration different points of view, and resistance to speculative facts and outliers are the criteria that should be used to evaluate an argument’s quality.
- The following is a memorandum from the office of Mayor Harrison Smith Jones."In order to relieve Briggsville’s notorious traffic congestion, Mayor Harrison Smith Jones plans to build a multi-million dollar subway system. The subway will run through 69
- Claim The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint Reason Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea Write a respo 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 293, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...stion, while a pluralistic one embraces many different viewpoints which can easily coexist wit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, second, so, while, as to, for example, for instance, i feel, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 12.9106741573 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3063.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 595.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14789915966 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93888872473 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17438246142 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.421848739496 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 999.9 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.8665706604 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.15 118.986275619 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.75 23.4991977007 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.464830730031 0.243740707755 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.182306634285 0.0831039109588 219% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119163837178 0.0758088955206 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320589631604 0.150359130593 213% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0887448997432 0.0667264976115 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.8420337079 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.