An argumentation differs in different audiences, for example, in classroom I have to argue for a specific request, for a right or even an idea and this issue has an academic audience. While in my daily life I have to argue for different subjects like a telephone call for my medical care to refund a bill or to ask a friend to go with me on a specific event, argumentation is part of my dally life. Further, my job demands that I write a memo to my boss or make a presentation to convince him about a decision that is important for the company.
The argumentation differs on the audience and in purpose, for example, the importance of a MBA, in my class room, the audience are supportive readers, they are doing a MBA and They know how important a MBA is, in this case I just have to direct the subject of the argumentation to the act, while on my daily life the audience could be wavering and I must address the reasons for resistance, one of resistance issues could be the time spent with the MBA and not with the family. On my job there are people that are supportive, wavering and even hostile and if they were hostile I would argue for lessening their objections, like in the MBA I could grow my social network and improve my knowledge about managing people.
I would use different supporting evidence because every audience has a different expectation even if the purpose is the same. I would expect my class to explain it in a detailed while in my job I would expect it shows the benefits for the company. For my life I would expect the benefits for me and for society. In all of these different situations I would expect it to be fair, ethical and moral.