I mainly agree with the claim that the best way to test an argument is its ability to convince an opponent of the idea. I am however not convinced that the reason for this being true is to then discover the real value of the idea. Here’s why:
Very first, we must understand the reason why people argue. It’s because we’re social animals that share a common living space, which constantly results in conflicts of interest. What I might want to do might impinge upon what somebody else is able to do. Animals also have these sorts of conflicts, and their most common solution is—with some exceptions—through violence: The stronger animal will get it his or her way. Us humans, with our better cognitive and communication skills however have developed the ability to solve conflicts using fighting with words. We constantly negotiate with each other to determine which ideas are put into practice, and which aren’t. It is only when this peaceful negotiation procedure fails that we use physical force to get it our way. To summarize my central point: Communicating with other people is a negotiating procedure that determines which ideas are going to be put into practice, and therefore the claim is correct, that it is crucial to constantly test an argument by communicating with other people, to see if they are socially viable.
Now, how is this explanation at odds with the reason given by the author of the task? The author lists the discovery of an idea’s value in the process of arguing with another person as the reason why one should engage in arguments with other people. This is only half-true. Yes, it will be through arguing with somebody else in an honest manner that one will be able to discover the quality of one’s idea. But quality is not tantamount to value! If losing an argument, the reason might very well just be because the argument was poorly developed but doesn’t forcibly mean that the idea behind the argument was without value. After a lost argument, one should therefore rather carefully evaluate why the argument was lost, and how to possibly improve the arguing strategy as well as the argument’s content, before discarding the idea as a whole.
There are also exceptions, where it’s not firstly through convincing somebody else that the quality of an argument is tested. The best example of such an exception is science. Scientists will naturally argue among themselves how to interpret data before reaching a definite conclusion about a discovery, but once the science is settled, scientific facts don’t depend on whether uneducated people can be convinced about their truthfulness.
Summa samarum, the central claim is mostly correct because it understands the fundamentally social nature of human beings. No matter how intelligent somebody is, and how sophisticated somebody’s ideas, if they aren’t able to communicate them efficiently to other people, most probably they are going fail.
- 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 res 66
- Three years ago because of flooding at the Western Palean Wildlife Preserve 100 lions and 100 western gazelles were moved to the East Palean Preserve an area that is home to most of the same species that are found in the western preserve though in larger 83
- 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 res 83
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting 66
- Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 330, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an honest manner" with adverb for "honest"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...l be through arguing with somebody else in an honest manner that one will be able to discover the q...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2503.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 487.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13963039014 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87615981529 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523613963039 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 792.0 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1723012212 60.3974514979 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.19047619 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1904761905 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.325524262496 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107042731013 0.0831039109588 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109277801043 0.0758088955206 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20389535789 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141623660194 0.0667264976115 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.