Popescu Roxana Ioana

M.A.I, gr 973
An II

ARGUMENT, QUESTION, CONNECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: AQCI

Create a one page word-processed and spell-checked document following the AQCI format for
each individual reading you are to present

1. CENTRAL QUOTATION. Quote a sentence (or excerpts from linked sentences) from the
text (or texts) that you think is central to the authors (or author's) implicit or explicit
argument(s). Always cite the page.

2. ARGUMENT. In no more than three sentences, state the author's explicit or implicit
argument. Be sure to include both: what the author is arguing for, and what they are arguing
against.

3. QUESTION. Raise a question which you think is not fully, or satisfactorily, answered by
the text. The question should be one of interpretation, or of inquiry, not simply a question of
fact.

4. EXPERIENTIAL CONNECTION. Say in a few lines only, how the argument confirms
or contradicts your own experience or common sense.

5. TEXTUAL CONNECTION. Connect the argument of this text to an argument or point

you find in another reading assignment we have done in this course or you have picked up
from earlier study at UCL. Present a quote from the other text (citing it properly), and explain
how the present text's argument contrasts with, confirms, clarifies, or elaborates the other text's
argument or point.

6. IMPLICATIONS. Lay out what this argument (#2 above) implies for understanding
material culture, the improvement of society, relations between individuals, genders or groups
(e.g., inter-ethnic, nations, etc.), who benefits, who gets hurt, or any other relevant facet of
social or cultural reality (a few sentences only).
Title and Author: The Guru Effect by Dan Sperber

1. The logical force of an argument does not depend on the authority of whoever puts it
forward. (Sperber, D. (2010).The Guru Effect, p. 588)

2. I consider that the author stands for the idea that a general truth can be exhibited under the
same form both by a specialist or a fraud to the same extent. He supports the phenomenon
according to which it is very difficult to decipher a true allegation of a false one at a first
glance and that there is needed a competent examination to validate an argument. In my point
of view, the author is arguing against the risk of deception and manipulation involved in
accepting the authority of communicators through the capacity to produce and evaluate
arguments.

3. How was the authority replaced by argument as the main basis of justified beliefs in the
transition to modernity?

4. In my point of view, there is often a clear opposition between those who trust more
authority than argument, and those who trust more argument than authority. I, personally,
embrace the idea of balance between these two elements.
Nevertheless, I consider that trust in authority may give us a reason to accept the validity of
an argument without examining its steps, or even without quite comprehending it. In school
we used to take facts for granted, without actually understand the logic behind them, only
because the teacher was the authority who was supposed to always be right. Now I
understand that in order to have an open mind you have to look for arguments and to seek
the true meaning of everything as this is the only course for improvement and evolution.

5. The tradeoff between errors of classification and physical, cognitive, and emotional
costs must be made with the knowledge that defaults make a large difference in lives saved
through transplantation. (Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives,
p. 1339)

I consider that the correlation between the two statements mentioned from the reading
assignments relies on the people beliefs. The knowledge that we have regarding anything, even
organ donation, comes from the logical force of an argument that a trustworthy authority
should provide accurately and transparently.
Moreover, in my opinion the true understanding of transplantation and its importance in other
people lives has to be spoken loudly through the power of arguments, so everyone can
comprehend the good done, and eliminating all the other circumstances that lead to delicate
ethical and psychological questions.
As Dan Sperber sustained, if there is a claim that people wont accept, the authority may still
try to convince them by providing an argument, starting from premises that they are willing to
accept the idea. Therefore, the tradeoff between emotional costs and the lives saved through
transplantation should be made through reasoned arguments that people are willing to accept
and understand, and that also clarifies all the physical and cognitive aspects involved.

6. From my point of view, the second argument regarding the defaults and lives saved through
transplantation is a very sensitive subject that is metamorphosing according to cultures and
religions all over the world.
Organ donation is a topic which contains many conflicting views. To some of the public
population organ donation is a genuine way of saving the life of another, to some it is mistrusted
and to others it is not fully understood. There are some techniques that can be used to increase
donation. Of these techniques the most crucial would be being educated.
If the life threatening and the critical shortage of organs was fully understood by the public,
organ donation would more likely be on the rise. An effort is needed throughout the world to
make people aware of the benefits this process contains.
Advances in medical technology have made it possible to save someone's life by a process of
organ donation. However, the scarcity of available organs is bringing the beneficial process
down.