Question: After reading and evaluating “Argument as conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument” Stuart Greene’s explanation as to how inquiry is much like another form of “research and argument” gave rise to one question brought upon this article. How does Greene’s “model of argument”, where he refers to writing as a form of conversation, argument, and inquiry, relevant to framing?
Response: From my point of view, framing helps put together different and apposing voices in our arguments. Not to mention it aids by narrowing it down to a particular issue instead of being all over the place, arising new conversations. It would be like starting an argument over the pros and cons of abortions and then someone leading the conversation to a whole new direction about how abortion is murder. Bringing about a new argument/conversation on people views on what they considered murder is.
Framing helps put an end to the hopping around and rising of new ideas. It helps by narrowing down the perspective from which writers present their arguments to us. It helps you stick to one issue or idea that is open to discussion without jumping around new or other irrelevant information, “As you can see, any perspective or lens can limit a readers’ range of vision: readers will see some things and not others” (14).
I believe writing is seen as a form of inquiry where you share your understanding of the claims made by others and the questions and conflicts that arise with it. Framing ties down to arguments based research writing in the way that every time we write an argument, the way we portray ourselves will depend on the previous arguments. Also including the arguments you want to prove wrong, and the new supporting information you want to contribute to the conversation without getting out of topic.
Stuart Greene mentions framing as being a metaphor used to describe the lens, or the point of view from which writers present their inquiries. A...