[College - Argumentative Communication] Essay Prompt Help

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

I need to write an essay about a situation where I was involved in an argument in which one of the three (or more) of these three ethical stances were used (either by me or my partner) - a tyrannical arguer, a seductive arguer, or a peaceful arguer. I'm having trouble understanding a specific part of the following instructions:

"With an understanding of critical thinking and argumentative communication under your belts, it is essential to think about situations in which a person you were in an argument with may not have exercised critical thinking skills or possessed good approach and tact. Adversely, there can be situations in which we as the arguer may not do the same.

For this thought essay, describe a situation in which you or someone you know used one of the three ethical stances of communication (which are described in Wayne Brockriede's essay, Arguers as Lovers) and discuss the use (or lack thereof) of critical thinking in this argument transaction. Some of the following things to keep in mind when addressing this prompt:

1. Provide a context behind the situation that took place, analyze what happened, and identify which ethical stance was taken (it is possible that more than one stance can be adopted).

2. Was the use of the stance ethically appropriate or inappropriate? Provide a strong justification and context for how this stance was needed.

3. Looking back on this situation, would another ethical approach have sufficed? Why or why not?

4. Describe how critical thinking did or would have affected the outcome of this situation."

What does #1 mean by "provide a context behind the situation that took place"? Please give me specific examples of how to provide context behind the situation. Thank you in advance!

[Tps222]

Originally Posted by drizzleRomanceGirl

I need to write an essay about a situation where I was involved in an argument in which one of the three (or more) of these three ethical stances were used (either by me or my partner) - a tyrannical arguer, a seductive arguer, or a peaceful arguer. I'm having trouble understanding a specific part of the following instructions:

"With an understanding of critical thinking and argumentative communication under your belts, it is essential to think about situations in which a person you were in an argument with may not have exercised critical thinking skills or possessed good approach and tact. Adversely, there can be situations in which we as the arguer may not do the same.

For this thought essay, describe a situation in which you or someone you know used one of the three ethical stances of communication (which are described in Wayne Brockriede's essay, Arguers as Lovers) and discuss the use (or lack thereof) of critical thinking in this argument transaction. Some of the following things to keep in mind when addressing this prompt:

1. Provide a context behind the situation that took place, analyze what happened, and identify which ethical stance was taken (it is possible that more than one stance can be adopted).

2. Was the use of the stance ethically appropriate or inappropriate? Provide a strong justification and context for how this stance was needed.

3. Looking back on this situation, would another ethical approach have sufficed? Why or why not?

4. Describe how critical thinking did or would have affected the outcome of this situation."

What does #1 mean by "provide a context behind the situation that took place"? Please give me specific examples of how to provide context behind the situation. Thank you in advance!

Provide information that will attempt to depict an accurate representation of the events/mindsets/history leading up to and surrounding the argument/discussion, and utilize that information to give people who are not directly involved a better idea of said situation at hand.

Example: Say myself and a disabled vietnam veteran are having a discussion on War. I'm arguing that it is a necessary evil, and he is arguing that it is the absolute worst thing ever created and endured by mankind. This stance wouldn't pack the same emotional punch if the contextual information of him being a disabled ex-soldier were left out. That information adds details to the argument that can shape your opinion or reaction.

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Originally Posted by Tps222

Provide information that will attempt to depict an accurate representation of the events/mindsets/history leading up to and surrounding the argument/discussion, and utilize that information to give people who are not directly involved a better idea of said situation at hand.

Example: Say myself and a disabled vietnam veteran are having a discussion on War. I'm arguing that it is a necessary evil, and he is arguing that it is the absolute worst thing ever created and endured by mankind. This stance wouldn't pack the same emotional punch if the contextual information of him being a disabled ex-soldier were left out. That information adds details to the argument that can shape your opinion or reaction.

Oh, I see! I just need to provide the reader with background details relating to how the argument occurred and why we would have reacted in that fashion. ^.^ Thank you very much.