Thank you, fooloso4, for clarification. I now understand better. However, I can't help but think that 'following where the argument leads', in the sense of thinking aloud, as an activity of value in itself and an opening up, would better be phrased as 'following where the discussion leads'.
There is no initial 'argument' as such, is there ? Or am I being a bit stupid here...probably. However, I take encouragement from Peter Suber.
Peter Suber's lecture notes and his philosophy regarding group enquiry. Part of it here:
https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/cour ... ticipation
Note for the shy: quality of oral contributions cannot be judged from a sample of zero. Note for the loquacious: quality of oral contributions is not a function of quantity, not even a little bit. Good class discussions require more than fluency in English. They require a reasonably civilized conquest of timidity, drawing the line between bashful under-confidence and what DeQuincy called "imbecile garrulity".
They require good listening and good will. You should reflect before speaking, build on previous comments, help discover the meaning that others are struggling to express, be open to persuasion, and bend to the weight of evidence and reasoning. You must be prepared to substantiate your factual or textual claims, to defend your value judgments, to show the connection between your premises and conclusions, and to use the diversity of insights and perspectives in the class to advance your understanding of our texts and their themes.
The ultimate premise of class discussion is that each of us can learn from each of us; otherwise we would read the books at home and never meet...
...Discussion is group inquiry, not merely group talk. We will try to understand our texts and reach answers on the important questions they raise. Group inquiry only works when the insights of many people are made public, giving each a view much wider than they could have had by themselves.
It requires that these perspectives be received with respect, but subjected to respectful scrutiny and criticism. For these reasons I want you to feel free, unafraid, and positively encouraged to speak your mind even when you suspect that others may disagree. You may feel uneasy, but I'll be pulling for you. Say anything that you believe is true and will help the group understand the issues or passages under discussion, especially if you can support your claim with reasons or evidence.
Respect anything said by another for which reasons are given; and when no reasons are given, ask for them. When you disagree with others, don't rest in your opposition to their statements or conclusions; find their reasons and address them directly.
If you accept the principle that discussion is group inquiry, then your uncertainty about a question is a good reason to speak, not a good reason to remain silent. If you don't have answers, but feel uncertain, then you can help the cause by asking questions to zero in on what is difficult.
Identify what sub-questions we must answer before we can answer the main question on the floor. If you agree with others, support them instead of remaining silent. If the atmosphere of the course ever prevents you from speaking up, proposing new ideas, asking questions, or disagreeing with anybody (student, teacher, author), whether the cause lies in me or your fellow students, please let me know. Beyond what I can do, however, students should take responsibility for the quality of their discussions.
If you accept the principle that your uncertainty is a good reason to speak, not a good reason to remain silent, then you will understand my expectation (in seminars and discussion courses) that everyone should speak every day.
To take responsibility for the quality of discussions means, at least, to come prepared every day to listen and speak, learn and teach, and to participate without being called on. While discussion is group inquiry, we are not just struggling for the "right answers", but also to explore and develop the process of this joint inquiry for answers. As Quakers say of the consensus process, aim for a "balance between being persuasive and being persuasible". If you want respect, insights, seriousness, and a healthy balance of speaking and listening from others, you must give the same to them.
Some wise pointers there, I think.
In this case, of course, group discussion does follow on from texts which will contain arguments. So, I suppose - I can see where I am wrong.
So, the injunction 'Follow where the argument leads' stands as is. Exploring and developing within a healthy atmosphere.