It would be fairly easy to try to prove that Columbus didn't discover America. When arguing that Cal Ripken, Jr. does not play baseball, however, there is less room for argument because there have been numerous people who have seen him play baseball. Therefore, the Ripken argument would be high risk, in that it would be hard to prove.
             The second element mentioned by Brockriede, is that there has to be a perceived rationale to support such a leap (Where is Argument # 6-7). One could argue Columbus
             didn't discover America because there may be strong evidence advocating this.
             In our other argument, one could prove that Cal Ripken plays baseball because of statistics, news interviews, etc. With the rationale of stats and interviews there would be a high risk to prove Ripken doesn't play baseball.
             A third portion of Brokriede's article says there has to be a choice between two or more competing claims for argument to exist (Where is Argument # 6-7). In advocating Columbus never discovered America, it would be low risk in proving this claim because the discovery occurred so long ago. Arguing that Cal Ripken does not play baseball would be very high risk to prove because of the overwhelming amount of evidence showing that he is in fact a baseball player. In addition, one also has to maintain a balance between certainty and uncertainty (Where is Argument # 6-7). In referring to our illustration there is great balance of certainty and uncertainty concerning Columbus discovering America, but the same balance is not found in the argument using Cal Ripken Jr. There also needs to be a willingness to risk confrontation with peers. By including all of the evidence from either argument, one has to risk confrontation with an opposing view. In doing this,
             argument is constructed. Finally, there has to be a shared frame of reference (Where is Argument # 6-7).
             If the argument being attempted is...