Argumentation Theory

Question 1

1958

Answer 1

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rheotric, Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument

Question 2

1970

Answer 2

Hamblin

Question 3

1980s

Answer 3

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s Pragma-dialectical approach, “The Amsterdam School”

Question 4

Toulmin Scheme

Answer 4

Data———–>Claim; warrant, backing, qualifiers, rebuttal

Question 5

Qualifier

Answer 5

“unless X”; can be further divided into two categories

1) 100% certainty; refute all exceptions
2) mention exceptions; used to show the conditions in which the data and warrant do/not apply

Question 6

Rebuttal

Answer 6

“X”

Question 7

Warrant

Answer 7

always conditional; provides evidence of statements

Question 8

Backing

Answer 8

support for the warrant

Question 9

Data

Answer 9

a statement that is normally singular

Question 10

Claim

Answer 10

a statement that has doubts

Question 11

Point of view

Answer 11

the pragma-dialectical term for claim

Question 12

Functions of argument schemes

Answer 12

1: Heuristic - used as a tool for finding/creating arguments
2: Evaluative: understand the type of argument in order to judge how good or bad it is using critical questions
3: Descriptive tool: form of “super grammar”’ large linguistic structures

Question 13

Pragma-dialectical division of schemes

Answer 13

Symptomatic, comparison, and causal relation

Question 14

Symptomatic division of schemes

Answer 14

mentioning in the standpoint that a specific characteristic of the premise is a typical quality
Ex. Argument from authority

Question 15

Comparison division of schemes

Answer 15

something controversial to the standpoint is related to something that is not controversial to show that the controversial subject should be accepted
Ex. Argument from analogy

Question 16

Causal relation division of schemes

Answer 16

an event mentioned in the argument is presented as the cause of the standpoint or vice versa
Ex. Argument from cause to effect/effect to cause

Question 17

Critical question/objection

Answer 17

find something intrinsically wrong with the argument and attack it at that point

Question 18

Counterargument

Answer 18

if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the argument, provide your own argument

Question 19

Argument from sign

Answer 19

a particular finding or observation, X, is taken as evidence of the existence of a property or event, E, in a given situation

Question 20

Argument from sign CQs

Answer 20

What is the strength of the correlation of the sign with the even signified?
Are there other events that would more reliably account for the sign?

Question 21

Argument from position to know

Answer 21

a is in a position to know whether A is true. a asserts that A is true, therefore a is true

Question 22

Argument from position to know CQs

Answer 22

Is a in a position to know whether A is true?
Is a an honest source?
Did a assert that A is true?

Question 23

Argument from example

Answer 23

used to support a generalization

Question 24

Argument from example QCs

Answer 24

Is the proposition mentioned by the example in fact true?
Does the example support the general claim it is supposed to?
Is the example typical of kinds of cases that the generalization ranges over?
How strong is the generalization?
Were there special circumstances in the example that would impair its generalizability?

Question 25

Argument from correlation to cause

Answer 25

there is a positive correlation between A and B, therefore A causes B

Question 26

Argument from correlation to cause CQs

Answer 26

Is there a positive correlation between A and B?
Are there a significant number of instances of the positive correlation?
Is there good evidence that the causal relationship is A to B and not B to A?
Can it be ruled out that the correlation between A and B is accounted for by a third factor?
If there are intervening variables, can it be shown that the relationship is indirect?
If the correlation fails to hold outside a certain range of causes, can the limits be indicated?
Can it be shown that the change in B is not due to the way B is defined?

Question 27

Argument from cause to effect

Answer 27

Generally, if A occurs, then B will occur. In this case, A occurs, therefore B will occur

Question 28

Argument from cause to effect CQs

Answer 28

How strong is the causal generalization?
Is the evidence cited strong enough to warrant the generalization?
Are there other factors that would interfere with the production of the effect?

Question 29

Argument from analogy

Answer 29

p(A) –> A sim B –> p(b)

p(A) –> p sim p’ –> p’(A)

Question 30

Argument from analogy CQs

Answer 30

Is p really of A?
Is m p (A)?
Is A essentially similar to B?

Question 31

Levels of critical questions

Answer 31

Burden of proof
Process
Product

Question 32

Burden of proof

Answer 32

What do I need to prove in order to convince the other side?

Question 33

Process

Answer 33

the arguments are produced in a good, solid manner; rules can be general (applying to all arguments) or specific (applying to specific arguments like presidential debates)

Question 34

Product

Answer 34

Scheme-independent: is p(A)? Is there naturalistic fallacy?

Scheme-dependent: is the authority speaking without bias? Within their area of expertise? Are they trustworthy?

Question 35

Naturalistic fallacy

Answer 35

changing the model qualifier in front of the p

Question 36

Argument from authority vs Argument from indirect authority

Answer 36

Argument from authority: someone tells you things and you believe them
Argument from indirect authority: you’re credible because you’re like people that have been trusted in the past
Scheme-dependent product levels of critical questions

Question 37

Argument structures

Answer 37

what you do with the schemes; can be serial, linked, or convergent

Question 38

Unexpressed premises

Answer 38

premises that are not explicitly stated; used because it would be boring and redundant to spell out every single argument

Question 39

Principle of Charity/Maximally argumentative analysis

Answer 39

reconstruct an argument so that it’s the strongest possible argument