Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.  

In the last post we discussed the process of refuting and rebuilding cases. In this post, we will focus on the arrangement and presentation of attacks with a shift to defending and rebuilding. 

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

Attacking arguments requires making arrangement choices such as should the attack be structured in the same way as the argument being attacked as well as how completely should the attack be developed. There are advantages and disadvantages or risks to be had. If structuring the attack similar to the argument being attacked then following the rejoinder is easy. An unfortunate risk is that the arguer is now on the opponent's ground. This requires considerable knowledge of the oppositions position in order to manuever the argument. An effective means to manuever is to build an organizational scheme around the central points. Comment: The opponent may have structured pre-judicial agruments or may have scripts to route the arguer into no win situations. Without strong knowledege and foresight of the opponent, positions, and subject the arguers may find themself in a no win scenario. For example, President  Reagan was being cornered in a discussion over the economy. Sam Donaldson demanded that President Reagan own up to his failures in a carefully crafted line of questioning. Left with little room to manuever in the conversation Reagan responded, "You're right. I am responsible. At one time, I was a Democrat." This response was unexpected and put the conversation on a different course by manuevering around a theme that Democrats are irresponsible in economic management matters. Reagan gained the upper hand instantly and maintained that position for the duration of the conversation.  In regards to the degree of developing a complete attack, the argument and basis of the attack must be clearly stated in way that the audience will accept. Then the attack should be developed and supported. In the end, the significance of the attack's accomplishments should be made clear.

The strategy choices regarding the defense of an argument that has been attacked are limited to about five options.

• Demonstrate that the attack is inapplicable to the case
• Demonstrate that the attack is of trivial consequences
• Demonstrate that the attack is inadequately established
• Demonstrate that the attack is in error
• Take the possible attacks into account and seek to marginalized them. This is the most basic choice made In the original presentation.

More importantly, The selection of a choice is not focused so much on whether or not to respond. Instead, the choice is how seriously to take the attack and which strategic choice to use. The choice centers on which will dominate the organizational plan; the original argument structure or the structure of the attack. The responder must take care not to restate the argument but to extend it or at least respond to the attack. Care should also be taken to prevent a run away attack so that the attack does not become the dominant focus.

General methods of refutation can be used in both attack and defense. There are six general approaches for refutation.

1. Reductio ad Adsurdum suggests that the opposing position leads to unacceptable implications.
2. Turning the tables demonstrates how an opposing position benefits the other
3. Dilemmas indicate that the choices to be made are from unattractive alternatives.
4. Argument residues dictate the opposing position by eliminating all other possibilities.
5. Argument a fortiori suggests that what is true of the lesser is true of the greater or vica versa.
6. Contradictions and inconsistencies eliminate at least one of the other Arguers positions, as well as questioning the oppositions credibility.

The processes of the attack and defense help move the argument forward. By making strategic choices some potential issues will be waived from consideration. Some aspects of argument and controversy will be dropped through the process of attack and defense. Ultimately, the central issues of the dispute will be identified, positions clarified, and the differences will be recognized.

Commentary: In project management it is important that project managers properly strucutre thier justifications using argumentation processes and anticipate political and personal agendas that may lead to attacks on the reasoning. Stakeholder registers are one tool in aiding PM's with assessing risk and positional attacks on project decisions. In the summary post, I'll reflect on the series with tools and methods to deflect, deter, deny, and diminish attacks.  I will also be consolidating the remaining briefs on argumentation in order to move onto other topics sooner.  I encourage readers to review Date Carnegie's notion of arguments: You Cannot Win an Argument: The Dale Carnegie Method

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA