Part of learning about argumentation involves learning how to respond to objecti

Part of learning about argumentation involves learning how to respond to objections made against ones reasoning as well as learning how to evaluate author responses to objections. Author responses to objections should always be (1) relevant to the objection, (2) plausible, and (3) consistent with what the author claims/defends elsewhere. For an author’s response to be relevant it must first demonstrate an accurate understanding of the concerns contained within the objection and make every effort to assuage, mitigate, or demonstrate how the concerns should not really be concerns. For an author’s response to be plausible, the counter-reasoning contained in the response should at least appear to be true, i.e., it should not be immediately easy to falsify, etc. Finally, for a response to be consistent, it must not contradict something the author has claimed or attempted to defend elsewhere (within the list of objections being responded to or within other articles related to the objection). These are the minimum criteria that a response to an objection must meet in order to be decent/good.
This week’s tasks:
1) Select one objection/response from Diekema & Fost, Ashley Revisted: Response to Critics. There are 25 to choose from. Tell us which one you select. For example, ‘I will discuss objection 5.’
2) Summarize the objection in your own words. Make sure to be as charitable as possible in your restatement of the objection and to note the concerns and/or values/disvalues that were likely motivating the people that raised the objection. (Identifying the concerns, values/disvalues that may have been motivating an objection is often helpful in determining whether an author’s response was actually relevant to the objection.)
3) Summarize Diekema/Fost’s response to the objection in your own words. Making sure to be as charitable as possible.
4) Analyze the counter-reasoning contained within their response. That is, was their response/reasoning relevant to the objection, plausible, and consistent? What were it’s strengths? What were it’s weaknesses? Your reasoning? Note that most arguments, responses/counters, etc., will have at least one strength and at least one weakness.
5) Finally, let us know whether or not you ‘buy it’? That is, do you think the response/counter-reasoning was successful in rebutting/turning aside the objection? If so, why so? If not, why not?