Improving your argumentation skills 

 Within the course of your BMAN trajectory , but certainly aslo beyond , you will find that people   expect you to deliver solid argumentations . In the context of this course , I am keen on finding   rigorous argumentations , which are explicit so they can be scrutinized . I am quite sure that whoever   is going to be your thesis supervisor will have a similar requirement . Ideally , you should find good   examples in academic articles . But the quality in that set of texts varies greatly , and often things are   taken as a given because the audience is expected to fill in argumentative gaps ( nobody will ask a   physicists to explain what they mean when they are writing about atoms ) . 

 Let 's look a bit deeper into what an argument really entails . We make an argument whenever we are   in the presence of one or more others , and we want to convince them to accept a certain statement   we are making . So an argument is part of an interaction between several persons , where one of   them seeks to convince the others of something . This means a number of things : 

 -   you have to make your position as explicit and clear as possible ;   -   you have to present a set of arguments that you think may convince the other person to accept   your position ;   -   you should try to find out what counterarguments could be made by the other , and pre - empt   these by trying to make clear why you believe they are not valid , relevant , or important . 

 Toulmin ( The Uses of Argument , 1958 ) provides a model of the 6 parts that an argument contains   ( for a summary , see http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm . Let ’s run   through these with an example . 

 The CLAIM is the position that you put forward . As an example we will use the following statement :   “ Social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems ” . In order to provide a compelling   argument , we must first state the GROUNDS for this claim : the reasons why we feel this claim is   correct . One important reason is that industrial ecosystems are – in part - social systems ( they are   also technical systems , and connect to material resource flows that are part of natural ecosystems ) .   The next element in the argument is the WARRANT , which connects the reason to the claim . It   specifies why the fact that industrial ecosystems are ( in part ) social systems leads to the conclusion   that social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems . My specification of this link   would be that social sciences provide the up - to - date knowledge on social systems , and such   knowledge is indispensable to gain insight into the social system - part of industrial ecosystems . This   warrant also builds on reasons , which are the BACKING . In the example , this would be something like   ‘ insight requires up - to - date scientific knowledge ’ ( you may accept this as a common sense truth , but   others might be less convinced ; they might stress that insight can only be developed by actually   working within industrial ecosystems for a long period of time ) . 

 Being an attempt at convincing others , there may be objections to this claim . As far as you know   these , they become part of your argumentation as REBUTTALS ( counter arguments to objections to   your claim ) . In our example , one could say that in an analytical sense , the social system only causes a   minor part of the dynamics of industrial ecosystems , and can therefore be safely dismissed . In   argument , I would include a rebuttal to show that this is not true : I could show with empirical 

 evidence that the same industrial activity , using similar technologies ( say oil refining ) , is organized in   radically different ways in different countries , and that these different organizational forms have   consequences for the flows and environmental impacts produced . This would effectively silence any   opponent that would want to make the objection . This is one way to take objections to your claim   into account in your argumentation . Another way is to add a QUALIFIER . This is a statement that   narrows down the scope of your claim . It could be that , after summing up certain evidence , you hold   the claim to be unproven in certain types of industrial ecosystems . 

 So , providing a full argument means that you are precise in formulating your claim and possible   qualifiers , provide not only the grounds for the claim but also how these grounds connect to the   claim ( warrant ) , and the backing for that warrant ( see the scheme in this link , together with some   additional explanation ) . If you apply this to your blogs and research proposal , you will notice that it   takes some time to figure out all these elements , and the way they connect . That ’s exactly what is   supposed to happen : you are then making the implicit parts of your thinking explicit . If you write   that up , then your argumentation is solid . In essence , that means : you provide others with all the   information necessary to make a decision whether they are convinced by you . If not , then they will   have to provide good reasons for questioning one of these elements . 

 Argumentation is important in any scientific discipline . It is especially important in the social sciences   ( including business administration ) , where there is less unity about the concepts and theories that   are used . This simply means that the choice for a theory or concept also has to rest on a solid   argumentation . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: 
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: Improving your argumentation skills 

 Within the course of your BMAN trajectory , but certainly aslo beyond , you will find that people   expect you to deliver solid argumentations . In the context of this course , I am keen on finding   rigorous argumentations , which are explicit so they can be scrutinized . I am quite sure that whoever   is going to be your thesis supervisor will have a similar requirement . Ideally , you should find good   examples in academic articles . But the quality in that set of texts varies greatly , and often things are   taken as a given because the audience is expected to fill in argumentative gaps ( nobody will ask a   physicists to explain what they mean when they are writing about atoms ) . 

 Let 's look a bit deeper into what an argument really entails . We make an argument whenever we are   in the presence of one or more others , and we want to convince them to accept a certain statement   we are making . So an argument is part of an interaction between several persons , where one of   them seeks to convince the others of something . This means a number of things : 

 -   you have to make your position as explicit and clear as possible ;   -   you have to present a set of arguments that you think may convince the other person to accept   your position ;   -   you should try to find out what counterarguments could be made by the other , and pre - empt   these by trying to make clear why you believe they are not valid , relevant , or important . 

 Toulmin ( The Uses of Argument , 1958 ) provides a model of the 6 parts that an argument contains   ( for a summary , see http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm . Let ’s run   through these with an example . 

 The CLAIM is the position that you put forward . As an example we will use the following statement :   “ Social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems ” . In order to provide a compelling   argument , we must first state the GROUNDS for this claim : the reasons why we feel this claim is   correct . One important reason is that industrial ecosystems are – in part - social systems ( they are   also technical systems , and connect to material resource flows that are part of natural ecosystems ) .   The next element in the argument is the WARRANT , which connects the reason to the claim . It   specifies why the fact that industrial ecosystems are ( in part ) social systems leads to the conclusion   that social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems . My specification of this link   would be that social sciences provide the up - to - date knowledge on social systems , and such   knowledge is indispensable to gain insight into the social system - part of industrial ecosystems . This   warrant also builds on reasons , which are the BACKING . In the example , this would be something like   ‘ insight requires up - to - date scientific knowledge ’ ( you may accept this as a common sense truth , but   others might be less convinced ; they might stress that insight can only be developed by actually   working within industrial ecosystems for a long period of time ) . 

 Being an attempt at convincing others , there may be objections to this claim . As far as you know   these , they become part of your argumentation as REBUTTALS ( counter arguments to objections to   your claim ) . In our example , one could say that in an analytical sense , the social system only causes a   minor part of the dynamics of industrial ecosystems , and can therefore be safely dismissed . In   argument , I would include a rebuttal to show that this is not true : I could show with empirical 

 evidence that the same industrial activity , using similar technologies ( say oil refining ) , is organized in   radically different ways in different countries , and that these different organizational forms have   consequences for the flows and environmental impacts produced . This would effectively silence any   opponent that would want to make the objection . This is one way to take objections to your claim   into account in your argumentation . Another way is to add a QUALIFIER . This is a statement that   narrows down the scope of your claim . It could be that , after summing up certain evidence , you hold   the claim to be unproven in certain types of industrial ecosystems . 

 So , providing a full argument means that you are precise in formulating your claim and possible   qualifiers , provide not only the grounds for the claim but also how these grounds connect to the   claim ( warrant ) , and the backing for that warrant ( see the scheme in this link , together with some   additional explanation ) . If you apply this to your blogs and research proposal , you will notice that it   takes some time to figure out all these elements , and the way they connect . That ’s exactly what is   supposed to happen : you are then making the implicit parts of your thinking explicit . If you write   that up , then your argumentation is solid . In essence , that means : you provide others with all the   information necessary to make a decision whether they are convinced by you . If not , then they will   have to provide good reasons for questioning one of these elements . 

 Argumentation is important in any scientific discipline . It is especially important in the social sciences   ( including business administration ) , where there is less unity about the concepts and theories that   are used . This simply means that the choice for a theory or concept also has to rest on a solid   argumentation .
### Output: 