Question

This is a two-part question:

In what type of argumentation situation do you think you might find traditional argument more productive than traditional argument? Describe an issue, along with the rhetorical situation, that might prompt you to resort to Rogerian argument

Answer 1

In certain argumentation situations, traditional argument may be more productive than Rogerian argument. However, for collaborative and contentious issues, Rogerian argument is more appropriate.

Step-by-step explanation:

In certain argumentation situations, you might find traditional argument more productive than Rogerian argument. Traditional argument is typically used when there is a clear opposition between two sides and the goal is to prove one side is right and the other is wrong. This type of argument is commonly used in formal debates, courtrooms, and persuasive essays where there is little room for compromise.

On the other hand, in a situation where there is a need for collaboration and finding common ground, Rogerian argument is more appropriate. This approach recognizes that people have different perspectives and aims to understand those perspectives in order to reach a mutually agreeable solution. For example, if the issue is gun control, which is highly polarized and contentious, using a Rogerian argument could be productive as it allows for respectful discussion and exploration of different viewpoints.