I mainly agree with the claim that the best way to test an argument is through its ability to convince an opponent of the idea. I am however not convinced that the reason for this being true is to thereby discover the real value of the idea. Here’s why:
At the very first we must understand the reason why people argue which we’ll find—as so often—in their evolutionary history: The reason why people argue is because we’re social animals that share a common living space, which constantly results in conflicts of interest between individuals. What I want to do might impinge upon what somebody else is able to do. To give an example, if both my wife and I want to use the television, and I’d like to watch channel A, but she’d much rather watch channel B, and because we can’t watch both channels at the same time, only one of us will get it their way. Animals also have these sorts of conflicts of interest, 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 through 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. Summarizing 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 check if they are socially viable.
Having clarified this, 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 honestly arguing with somebody else that one will be able to discover the quality of one’s idea. But quality is not tantamount to value! In the case an argument is lost, the reason might very well just be because the argument was poorly developed, so that doesn’t forcibly mean that the idea behind the argument was without value. 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 or scientifically untrained people in general 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 these ideas efficiently to other people, they are going fail to get them implemented.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 159, Rule ID: REASON_IS_BECAUSE[1]
Message: Probably an incorrect phrase. Use 'the reason 'is that''.
Suggestion: is that
...ry history: The reason why people argue is because we're social animals that share a ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, honestly, however, if, so, therefore, well, in general, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 33.0505617978 166% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2872.0 2235.4752809 128% => OK
No of words: 561.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11942959002 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86676880123 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90147021829 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497326203209 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 905.4 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.8741361884 60.3974514979 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.761904762 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7142857143 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.295629843983 0.243740707755 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106000814615 0.0831039109588 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101232773182 0.0758088955206 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200634597445 0.150359130593 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131045272194 0.0667264976115 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.