CHAPTER 11
HOW ARE PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY ARGUED?
True or False
11-1 Outside of academic debate competitions, the only place we find argumentation
taking place is in state and federal legislative bodies.
11-2 In the traditional pattern of organization, the advocate argues the three stock issues
11-3 In policy argumentation, a “disparity” is a proposal for some behavioral change.
11-4 A “disparity” is a problem or difference between the way things exist now and
some more ideal future state.
11-5 In arguing the “reason for change” in a policy proposition, the advocate must offer
argumentation concerning extent, harm, and inherency.
11-6 The only value claim an advocate of a policy proposition must make is the one
which evaluates the workability of her proposed policy.
11-7 In policy argumentation, part of the advocate’s burden of proof is to present the
details which explain exactly how the policy change is to occur.
11-8 In policy argumentation, the advocate’s policy proposal may be used as an
operational definition of the terms in the proposition.
11-9 “Solvency” refers to the ability of a proposed policy to overcome a disparity.
11-10 The subsidiary effects of the advocate’s proposal constitute a warrant for change,
and their absence renders the advocate’s case non-prima facie.
11-11 A counterproposal must be non-topical and preclude the adoption of the advocate’s
proposal as well.
11-12 A comparative advantage case is a strategy used by the opponent to offer a
counterproposal or minor repair to the advocate’s reason for change arguments.
11-13 One option for case development for advocating a policy proposition is to use the
“goals–criteria” approach to case development. If you selected this option, you would use
techniques of value argumentation to begin by examining what is presently valued by
your audience and the goals that have been set to achieve this value.
11-14 In arguing against propositions of policy, it is usually wisest for the opponent to
argue against both the reason for change and the consequences of change.
11-15 The advocate has the option of suggesting “minor repairs” that would satisfy the
11-16 A minor repair must be a natural consequence of that which presently exists,
11-17 An opponent’s “circumvention arguments” in policy argumentation are based on
the premise that people resist change.
11-18 If the opponent in policy argumentation offers a minor repair, it must meet the
same standards of proof and reasoning as the advocate’s policy proposal.
11-19 One strategy available to the opponent in an argument over a change in policy is
to perform a “worst case” analysis and look for harmful consequences, or disadvantages,
11-20 As an opponent, you might use the technique of offering a counterproposal when
all those involved in argumentation agree that a problem exists and must be solved, but
Multiple Choice
11-1 In preparing to advocate your policy proposition, you have discovered that there is
almost universal agreement that a reason for policy change exists. The controversy is
over what the best course of action should be. You will structure your case as a
“comparative advantages” development of arguments. What should appear first in your
case development?
(a) The first stock issue: arguments about the reason for a change in the manner
suggested by your proposition.
(b) The second stock issue: the details of the specific policy you are proposing.
(c) The third stock issue: the advantages or consequences of the policy you are
proposing.
(d) The fourth stock issue: arguments explaining how your policy proposal meets
certain goals or criteria that society presently values.
11-2 The __________ pattern of organization for policy argumentation begins by
examining what society values and offering a policy change that will better achieve that
objective.
(a) need-plan-advantage
(b) comparative advantage
(c) goals-criteria
(d) counterproposal
11-3 In arguing that there is a reason for change in policy, which of the following is
NOT part of the advocate’s burden of proof?
(a) Presenting disadvantages of the proposed policy.
(b) Quantifying the nature of the problem.
(c) Characterizing the consequences of the problem.
(d) Establishing that the problem is inherent.
Assume that the advocate has offered the following arguments on behalf of the
proposition: The Federal Government should impose minimum standards for teacher
certification.
I. Teachers are poorly prepared in academic subjects.
II. Of students graduating with education degrees in the past five years, over 40%
cannot pass eighth grade equivalency tests in spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and basic
mathematical skills.
III. Poorly prepared teachers produce poorly taught students.
IV. Teacher licensing standards in most state demand too much time spent in “education”
courses and not enough time spent in academic subject matter and basic skills.
11-4 Which argument in the example is an inherency argument?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-5 Which argument in the example is a significance argument?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-6 Which argument in the example describes harm?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-7 In the example above, the mechanism is found in which part of the proposal?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-8 In the example above, the enforcement of the proposal is found in which part of the
proposal?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
11-9 In the example above, the change is found in which part of the proposal?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
11-10 Which claim in the example suggests inherency?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
Answer: B; Page: 233; Difficulty: 3; Skill: Applied
11-11 Which claim in the example suggests significance?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
Answer: A; Page: 233; Difficulty: 3; Skill: Applied
11-12 Which claim in the example suggests effect?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-13 In the proposed policy example, the mechanism is found in?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
11-14 In the proposed policy example, the financing is found in?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-15 In the proposed policy example, the change is found in?
(a) I
(b) II
(c) III
(d) IV
11-16 As an opponent for a policy proposition, which of the following questions should
you NOT ask yourself in establishing your strategy of opposition?
(a) What is the advocate’s burden of proof and has she met it?
(b) Has the advocate implied one or more values that she asks the audience to
accept without explaining the value(s)?
(c) Has the advocate used the “traditional” need-plan-advantage structure for
developing the proposition?
(d) Does the advocate’s reason for change contain assumptions that are unwarranted
because she has not offered adequate proof and reasoning for these assumptions?
11-17 The advocate must establish the “workability” of her proposal. As the opponent,
you have the strategic option of challenging this workability. Which of the following are
ways you might challenge workability?
(a) Demonstrate that the cost of making the proposal work because it will be slow,
inconvenient, and time consuming would outweigh any benefits gained from it.
(b) Question the solvency of the advocate’s proposal by the application of the
principle, “whatever can go wrong will go wrong.”
(c) Identify the attitudinal barriers to the advocate’s proposal that will cause those
who are supposed to change to resist change.
(d) All of the above
11-18 In a circumvention argument, the opponent of a policy proposition argues
(a) because society is not static, given enough time, self-correction will occur.
(b) because people resist change, they will find ways to avoid a change imposed
upon them.
(c) because society is not perfect, the possibility for disadvantageous consequences
from a policy always exist.
(d) because people favor change in the face of disparity, a counterproposal should
be examined.
11-19 One type of argument which can be made against a proposal for change is referred
to as a “disadvantage” argument. Which of the following things is NOT true of a
disadvantage argument?
(a) It visualizes the world as if the advocate’s proposal were adopted.
(b) It suggests that the proposal would have no effect if adopted.
(c) It is argued using the claims of effect, significance, and inherency.
(d) It has the same requirements for proof that any other argument would have.
11-20 One option available to you as an opponent of a policy proposition is to examine
the underlying philosophy of the advocate’s case for a policy change. Using this strategy,
you would begin with the value hierarchy in which the advocate seems to have placed her
proposal for change and develop arguments about the appropriateness of this value
hierarchy. This is the opposition strategy of
(a) offering a counterproposal.
(b) presenting a critique of the proposition or the proposal for change.
(c) presenting disadvantages to the proposal’s workability.
(d) identifying barriers that might preclude inherency from being overcome.