So my supervisor assigned us all to read this book concerning argumentation and asked our opinions about it. Everyone was generally vague w/ their praise, but I actually had a few legitimate criticisms of the work (it wasn't all bad, but I mentioned how I felt the beginning seemed like pseudo-edifying pedagogy, there were sections I felt were contradictory of other sections, etc.,)... so what is my supervisor's response?
"Well, Ryan, these publishers are Stanford graduates and highly respected in their field. How many books have you published?"
How is that
at all relevant to what I had to say? What I
really wanted to respond with was how I didn't think ad hominems were mentioned anywhere in the book, so maybe you should utilize a legitimate form of rebuttal.