The Rogerian Argument
Essay Preview: The Rogerian Argument
Report this essay
Chapter 10: Notebook Assignment P.325
Review questions:
What are the four goals of a Rogerian argument, and how do they differ from those of traditional argument?
The Rogerian argument four goals is to let readers know they have been understood, show how readers positions are valid in certain context and under certain conditions, get readers to believe that both of them share the same values, types of experience, attitudes, and perceptions and are thus similar in significant ways, and propose solutions made up of elements from both sides that can be agreed to by both parties. On the other and, the traditional argument goal is to form reasons, justify beliefs, and draw conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others.
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of Rogerian argument?
One of the advantages of the Rogerian argument is the fact that the Rogerian argument demonstrates an unconditional regard for the opposition and provide the best solution, which is a combination of what both parties want. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages might be that people who are not using the same type of argument might feel that the argument is weak therefore, making it difficult to find a solution.
In what type of argumentation situation do you think you might find Rogerian argument more productive than traditional argument? Describe an issue, along with the rhetorical situation, which might prompt you to resort to Rogerian argument.
I think that in personal life, like when we are in relationships, focusing on common ground is the easiest way to maintain a healthy relation because both parties feeling and opinions are taken into consideration. However, when we are faced to situation where we need to be convincing and straight forward, I think that a traditional argument might make a better impression. For example, if you argue with your lover a Rogerian argument is the best way to reach an understanding, but if you are presenting a business project to a board of executives, a traditional argument might be the best way to convince them of you abilities.
In what type of argumentation situation do you think you might find traditional argument more productive than Rogerian argument? Describe an issue, along with the rhetorical situation, which might prompt you to use traditional argument instead of Rogerian argument.
I think traditional argument is easier to use, and works very well when the audience mostly agrees with the arguer. Moreover, the traditional argument is all about winning and influencing the opinion of others in some case. One of the most recent examples of that argument is the electoral campaign for the presidential where on one side we had McCain who used this type of argument and President Obama