In this weeks reading assignment of ARCS the book goes into a very in depth discussion which is actually difficult to follow about staseis. However once I figured out what the hell they were even talking about I found that there was a lot of information on the topic. It seems like the author is basicaly discussing that anyone can have an opinion but when you find the staseis you can create a solid argument instead of just an opinion that you throw at the opposition. It talks about how once you understand both sides of the argument you can build your argument using the four questions. You can ask yourself the conjecture, the definition, the quality, and the policy which will give you the solid basis from which you can defend your side of the argument. Another good strategy discussed was about examining the article and how you can defend both sides without taking an immediate stance on which side you're on. The topic of abortion was a good example of this because it is such a commonly used argument and easy to relate to what the author was trying to say in regards to the argument.
On the other hand what I didn't like about the chapter was how boring it was to read. I really thought that the author took the long way to explain things instead of simply saying it. More or less I just felt that he made the material more complicated then is necessary. When the four questions are explained in relation to abortion the author gives a multitude of examples but to an extent that is not necessary. He seems to bludgeon the information into the reader instead of simply saying what is needed and then moving on. Overall I found the chapter more of a pain in the ass to read than the information was worth but that’s just my take.
No comments:
Post a Comment