- They should have been using arguing to convince in order to convince the other person to agree with their reasoning.
- This aim of argument is formal but both Stephens are very informal in their argument. They yelled and spoke over each other and did not show much respect for the other person.
- They were not well informed in their argument because they did not offer reliable solid evidence for their opinions. They were not open to constructive criticism because they were not really listening to the other’s argument. They did not consider the audience because both were arguing for “the person in their example” and projected their own feelings onto the figurative person. They did not use responsible reasoning because they were concerned with a singular event with one person and not the whole ongoing argument of the death tax.
- Because both Stephens completely disregarded any aim of argument, they did not come to a proper conclusion.
- This will inform you on how to think about the other person’s argument and if it is a valuable reliable argument.
writing 