Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

by David Zarefsky

12 hours 15 mins

What is effective reasoning? And how can it be done persuasively? These questions have been asked for thousands of years, yet some of the best thinking on reasoning and argumentation is recent and represents a break from the past.

These 24 engaging lectures teach you how to reason, how to persuade others that what you think is right, and how to judge and answer the arguments of others - and how they will judge yours. Professor Zarefsky makes argumentation accessible and familiar by breaking it into five easy-to-understand The tools of formal logic, while essential and even definitive for mathematics and programming computers, are inadequate to decide most controversial issues.

This course shows more useful approaches. Arguments can be divided into three a claim, evidence, and an inference linking the evidence to the claim. All arguments fall into a handful of distinctive categories, and the same issues are at stake each time one of these distinctive patterns occurs. Three kinds of evidence can be advanced to prove an argument that something is objective data, social consensus, and personal credibility. There are six kinds of inference that link evidence to a example, cause, sign, analogy, narrative, and form. How to use and challenge each is explained.

Along the way, you'll look at numerous actual controversies with a perspective that allows you to see the structure of all disputes. In this way, argument becomes an exchange, not just a flurry of words.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Communication, Education, Logic, Business

24 pages, Audible Audio

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[Christie Skipper Ritchotte]

Maybe I'm too ADD, but I listened to three of the cds, and when the subject still hadn't gotten rolling good and properly, decided not to finish. This is a subject I'm very much interested in; the art and implementation of rhetoric has been sadly neglected in schools, to society's detriment. Unfortunately, while this professor may well have had lots of illuminating insights later on, I found he dallied too much on very basic explanations, and brother, if you haven't started teaching me anything by the fourth lecture, I'm over and out.

To be fair, I'm notoriously harder on audio books than written ones, so this isn't my favorite method of "reading." Could well be that I'd have had more patience if it had appeared in written form. I won't rate, since I couldn't finish.

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a superb logic and rhetoric course by an interesting and engaging speaker. There wasn't a lot here that I didn't get in my own studies and a college course on the subject but he went into some areas of application that I had never considered before and suggested some new tactics that I'm anxious to try.

Especially was his philosophy of argumentation which is that it's NOT about winning or losing, it's about gaining great understanding. I like THAT a lot.

I was so favorably impressed with this series that I recommended it in a Facebook group that I founded for coaching and supporting folks who are in Religious Studies - a sphere with no shortage of things to argue about.

I highly recommend this course.

[Mani · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been through this audio book three times. i find knew things to love about it each time.

As a matter of fact, it bends how I read other books about argumentation. The nested structure of the lectures, from case construction to the individual lectures exploring each kind of warrant-inference relationhip forces review and elaboration of the rhetorical concepts.

Highly recommend followed by "Thank You For Arguing".

[Devanshi Mehta · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't feel like I learned new things. I wouldn't go through such a long course for this kind oclf content.

[Jurij Fedorov · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's overall a letdown just because it doesn't really introduce any scientific foundation. So you never know if what he says is important or not.

Pro:

The writing style is clean and simple. It's simple to understand and all the logic mostly makes sense overall. This book is good for high school students who just want to know the definition of argumentation and how it works overall. It's very much basic and a good intro to beginners in this field.

Con:

What is this?`I have seen too many of these Great Courses that are just about seemingly nothing. This was not overly politically preachy so that's good. Some of the other courses are basically left leaning propaganda sprinkled with science. This was a bit left leaning but nothing much at all. It's just there is not much to it. What did I learn from this? It's nice to know what arguments are but I feel like he just talked and talked without talking about anything concrete. It's a damn shame that this is so low brow and just predictable and simplified. It honestly seems like he never read a study in his life.

Read this if you really have a problem understanding arguments. But, for how long it is it doesn't pack a great knowledge punch at all. It's never better than just acceptable. And it's worth a listen if you have the time and nothing else to do. Otherwise there are better and more informative books out there.

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thinking through this content is helpful to keep the mind fresh on healthy argumentation. Just like any other topic, if you don't study up on it every now and then, you're likely to forget some of the basics, and without that foundation in place, the house of knowledge starts to crumble. Just like most of these great courses, it's nice to (re)visit when you feel it's necessary for you to dive (back) into a subject. This is an average and informative one, but a little boring for my taste. Somewhat of a snoozer.

[Angela Blount · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a difficult lecturer to listen to or comprehend, as he does seem passionate about the topic. But ultimately I didn't find it particularly compelling, nor did I take away as much as I was hoping.

I suppose I was looking for more pragmatic applications--perhaps some instruction on logic and persuasion beyond simple tricks of semantics. This is more of a very extended definition of the term "argumentation" and its origins as a concept. The goal seems to be to encourage a more thoughtful examination of a major aspect of communication: how and why we engage in contentious debate, recognizing both the intended audience and desired resolution.

Lots of examples provided from American political speeches and movements, and how they have succeeded or failed to bend popular opinion on certain subjects. Political partisanship is largely avoided, aside from some discernable left lean in the word choices concerning his example regarding partial-birth abortion (which he seems to regard as an underhanded-yet-effective term that managed to gain more traction than the more detached and clinical sounding "dilation and evacuation.")

I found the delivery straightforward but dry. A bit of humor now and then would have been nice, just to help maintain attention.

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

The lessons that are to be had in this course are much needed in contemporary society, and even within individual relationships and group situations--understanding how to argue better is not just a matter of how to fight with people better, but is intended to be about displaying greater reasoning so as to reach more effective solutions to problems. Professor Zarefsky does a fantastic job of walking you through the basics of argumentation and supplying a helpful, comprehensive vocabulary with which to discuss arguments and tactics of argumentation. Where these lectures really shine, though, is in the concluding lectures, where the importance of effective argumentation is put into a societal context so that we can see just how critical it is to develop these kinds of reasoning skills. The early lectures can get a tad wearisome because they are basic, but it is true that they are necessary in order to build up to the great work that comes later--so just know that coming in and you'll be just fine in working through it all.

[Haoyan Do · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book starts slow, but gradually it becomes more interesting when the contents turn to presumption, evidence, claim, evidence, fallacy etc. It will be an even more interesting book if there are more case studies and examples, and if the case studies and examples are more complicated. I guess the book is only about very basic arguments and has no wish to go into anything too deep and complicated.

I am now at the last three chapters of the book and they are the best. However I wish there are more examples of the arguments among friends and lovers. Of course sitcoms and novels can be very good source of those. Also arguments in public sphere, I wish there are more examples and more complicated examples of arguments--for example the arguments between Camus and Sartre concerning Soviet Union.

An in-depth examination of various examples probably will take up a lot of space, but that is what's truly fascinating. Also if Aristotle is the first person to pay attention to arguments, what's the example that Aristotle is talking about? I am very interested to know. I thought Socrates is the first person since he is engaged in discourses all the time with the youth of Athens. Probably Socrates is more about discourse (there are some arguments involved though) and Aristotle is more about arguments.

[SelfBooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, David Zarefsky offers a comprehensive guide to mastering the art of constructive argumentation. Through engaging lectures, Zarefsky teaches listeners how to recognize logical fallacies, construct coherent arguments, and tailor their reasoning to different audiences. Covering concepts like standalone versus linked arguments and the historical roots of debate in Aristotle’s teachings, the course emphasizes clarity and understanding over confrontation. With insights into argument strength, fallacy detection, and maintaining respect in discussions, this audiobook equips learners with practical skills to improve debates in personal, professional, or academic settings.

[Bill Glover · Rating 5 out of 5]

This lecture series will give you a sinking feeling when you consider all the preconditions that are taken for granted. The bits about sharing accepted, vetted data, that’s gone now. Argumentation as a means of finding a mutually acceptable resolution seems like a pipe dream. Maybe just stick to lectures on skepticism, Logic and statistical probability for now.

[Scott Wozniak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strong survey of the ways to organize your thoughts and prove your point. It covered many different tools and approaches, with lots of great examples.

This was not about manipulation or overwhelming rhetorical force. This might have been better titled something like “How Reasoning Works” or “How to persuade and explain”.

I learned a lot.

[Lourvens Pierre · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m really glad that I was able to listen to this for free I would’ve been pissed if I spent money on this. Everything in here is mostly just common sense. “The philosopher’s toolkit: how to be the most rational person in the room” is way better for learning how to argue effectively.

[Pam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good review of what I studied long ago. I liked the examples he used to illustrate his points.

[Geir Skårland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Useful. Well structured. Close to no redundancy. Hoping to listen to it again, sometime.

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pretty sure I wanted to enjoy this at the beginning but the narrator's voice made me tense and I didn't finish.

[S. Kallahan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bears repetition. So much detail in these courses.

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely worth a read, I learned quite a bit. Now, I listened, but I want to go back through the *.pdf which comes with the audible book.

[Alexey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book/course for its clarity and lots of usable knowledge on argumentation and rhetoric that I haven't had before.

[Curtis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a pretty fundamental course, and not focused on pragmatism. It'll teach you the formal theory of argumentation with lots of examples from American political and legal discourse.

[Joseph L. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:
https://youtu.be/rQslcxzt3Tc

[Kiki · Rating 5 out of 5]

CD course. This was an excellent course. Truly useful ideas.

[Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most out of something with least amount of talking

Argumentation is a means in which you search for the highest quality of claims

[Nada | ندى · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary.

[Božidar · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love it. I wish more people would be aware of the subject matte, even in traces.

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 4 out of 5]

a decent overview of the field, even if it's a bit hard to follow while commuting and doesn't really "stick" the way historical content, which has a more narrative feel to it, might. definitely consult the guidebook after each lecture for the full experience.

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't care for Zarafsky'd voice but I thought the content was solid. There was just so much information that I couldn't retain hardly any of it. Occasionally I would take notes while I listened which helped. In my logic textbook, there are an absurd amount of exercises and no wonder--without regular exercises and engaging ways to actually practice argumentation, all this information is sure to just slide off the brain like water off a tin roof.
My favorite part of the lectures where he evaluated arguments from speeches.

Hmm...one thing I didn't care for. The lecturer had a thing for how pro-lifers managed to get "intact dilation and evacuation" renamed "partial-birth abortion." One definitely gets the impression that Zarafsky is pro-choice, and sees the prolifer's success in renaming this grizzly form of infanticide as an underhanded way of keeping of it illegal, and stealing from woman their private "right" to have their baby dismember, or its brain sucked out off its head or burned alive in saline. It seemed liked Zarefsky had no problem whatsoever with "intact dilation and evacuation" and this was rather disturbing. Oh... I can't conceive of how anyone could approve of this barbarism. But I suppose many cultures throughout history have practiced infanticide--setting unwanted babies out to die from exposure or to be eating by the beast. They somehow not only saw it as their right but as their duty, and did it without the pangs of conscience. It is no surprise many have found a way to continue infanticide, just under a different name. Evil has a way of regrowing a new head after the last one was cut off. And labeling the killing of an innocent and helpless infant the "right" of her mother as unsettling.

[Giri Namasivayam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An entertaining and educational book, with a lively narration that makes it easy to digest. The author starts of by clearing up a common misconception, that argumentation is the same as arguing. Arguing as a term generally has a negative connotation as a wasteful activity. He defines argumentation as the practice of justifying claims under conditions of uncertainty, which certainly is needed in so many spheres of life (e.g. legal field). With that definition, the author takes us on a journey of understanding how argumentation works and how to use it in our own lives. The author deconstructs the structure of arguments (e.g. the claim, the evidence to substantiate the claim, and additional support for the evidence). He shows how, depending on the nature of the counter arguments, additional elements come into play in supporting the original claim. He weaves in examples from both the past and contemporary societies (e.g. abortion rights) as useful illustrations of the way these argument structures have been employed in the great public debates. He doesn't limit himself to just the great public debates, but also describes how argumentation applies at the individual level as well. Of course, understanding the theory is one thing, effectively using the techniques takes continuous practice. And that of course, is up to us, the readers.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm probably right.  I have quite a few opinions on as many topics. I'm a careful thinker, so I'm probably right about most of them.  Is that good enough?  What if it's really important, like whether or not you're about to fall off a cliff.  Don't you want me to be more than probably right?  

Lately I've been thinking about the limits of pure reason.  As long as we're just a couple blokes arguing, we can only ever know if we're probably right.  Or if we're merely justified in our position.  If we're looking for something more certain, we need it revealed to us by someone with a better perspective.  We can only know something for certain if we learn it from a certain source, and reason is not sufficient.  

Nevertheless, Zarefsky has taught a good course.  If I stick to his regimen, I'll be halfway there.  Some notes:

-In the presence of uncertainty, a good argument is one that would convince a reasonable person. 

-Engagement means risking being wrong.  

-Being willing to engage shows a respect for the personhood of your opponent. 
 
-Deductive reasoning only rearranges what we already know

-Amplitude

-Doesn't advocate using questions to attack a case unless they're unanswerable

-Regarding warrant, author appeals to consensus

[Ralph Trickey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent introduction to how to break down an argument
It appeared to be aimed at lawyers, but I found it to be an excellent discussion of what kinds of things to look at when building an argument and reviewing one. I definitely learned something that will help me look at discussions with a more critical eye.