Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

argumentation discourse > Begrippen > Flashcards

Begrippen Flashcards

1
Q

argumentative discussion

A
  • aimed at coming to a reasonable agreement

- to make use of argumentation as a means to achieve a resolution of a difference of opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

a difference of opinion

A
  • when two parties do not fully agree on a standpoint

- not necessarily an opposing standpoint; doubt is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

explicit difference of opinion

A

Both the standpoint and the rejection of it are cleary expressed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

implicit difference of opinion

A
  • only one party puts forward its views, the other party’s speticism or doubt is anticipated
  • especially in written text
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

proposition

A
  • the content of a statement in which a certain property or quality is ascribed to the person or thing referred to
  • description, prediction, judgement, advice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

standpoint

A
  • the position one takes with respect to a proposition

- positive standpoint, negative standpoint, neutral standpoint

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

single difference of opinion

A
  • only one standpoint is adopted (whether positive or negative)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

multiple difference of opinion

A

the standpoint relates to more than one proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

non-mixed difference of opinion

A

there is only one party who is committed to defending a standpoint ( the other party is only doubting)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

mixed difference of opinion

A

opposing standpoints are adopted with respect to the same proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

the elementary form

A

a single, non-mixed difference of opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

main difference of opinion

A

the main disagreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

subordinate difference

A

disagreements that may arise during the discussion about the main disagreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

resolving a difference of opinion versus settling a difference of opinion

A

uncivilized: threatening

civilized 3rd party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

critical discussion

A

an ideal argumentative discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion
- takes place between a protagonist and an antagonis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

protagonist

A

a party who defends a standpoint

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

antagonist

A

a party that callenges the standpoint of the protagonist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

discussion stages

A

confrontation stage, opening stage, argumentation stage, concluding stage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

confrontation stage

A

the parties establish that they have a difference of opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

opening stage

A
  • the parties decide to resolve the difference of opinion
  • they assign the roles
  • they agree on the rules
  • they agree on starting points
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

argumentation stage

A

the protagonist defends the standpoint by putting forward arguments

22
Q

concluding

A

the parties asses to which extent the difference has been resolved and in whose favor

23
Q

progressive presentation

A

the standpoint follows the argument, thus/therefore

24
Q

retrogressive presentation

A

the standpoint is given before the argument, because/since

25
Q

‘because’

A

is often used for explanations, elaborations or clarifications. Is not used as argumentation sinve it is already accepted, “the pudding didn’t stiff because, i didn’t put enough gelatin in it.

26
Q

maximally argumentative interpretation

A
  • everything is interpreted as argumentation, minimizes the risk of overlooking timportant utterances for your analysis
27
Q

unexpressed premises

A

when certain elements of argumentation are intenionally left out/implicitly present

28
Q

unexpressed standpoints

A

when a standpoint is unexpressed.

29
Q

the communication principle

A

be clear
be sincere
be efficient
keep to the point

30
Q

the clarity rule

A

whatever is said should be as easy to understand as possible

31
Q

the sincerity rule

A

whatever is said must not be insincere

32
Q

the efficiency rule

A

whatever is said should not be redundant or pountless

33
Q

the relevancy rule

A

whatever is said must connect with what has gone before

34
Q

recognizing indirectness

A
  • by violating one or more of the communication rules, yet at the same time not abandoning the communication principle
  • the listener tries to be the speaker’s words in such a way that the violation acquires a plausible meaning
  • listeners know it is happening because it is the only way to make sense of an obvious violation of the communication rules
35
Q

correctnessconditions

A
  • conditions that mus be fulfilled for a speech act to be correct
  • prepatory conditions
  • responisbility conditions
36
Q

prepatory conditions

A

state what the speaker must do in order to follow the efficiency rule

37
Q

responsibility conditions

A

describe what the speaker must believe in order to follow the sincerity rule

38
Q

making unexpressed standpoints explicit

A
  • by using logic
  • if there is more than one possibility, choose the standpoint that is most fitting in the light of context and background information
39
Q

making unexpressed premises explicit

A

“if…then…” statement

40
Q

modus ponens

A

if p then q
p
therefore q

41
Q

modus tollens

A

If p, then q
not q
therefore, not P

42
Q

multiple argumentation

A
  • alternative defenses of the same standpoint, presented one after another
  • do not depend on each other
  • are of equal weight
43
Q

coordinative argumentation

A
  • a combination of argument that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defense
  • sometimes each argument by itself is too weak
  • sometimes the second argument rules out possible objections to the first argument
44
Q

subordinative argumentation

A
  • arguments are given for arguments

- the weakest link determines the strength of the whole

45
Q

single argumentation

A

one argument as defense for a standpoint, consists of two premises of which one is unexpresed

46
Q

maximally argumentative analysis

A

when ther is just as much reason to choose the coordinative as the multiple analysis it is preferable to opt for multiple argumentatio
- this ensures that each part of the argumentation is judged on it’s own merits

47
Q

logical inconsistency

A

when statements cannot possibly both be true because they contradict each other

48
Q

pragmatic inconsistency

A

when argumentation contains two statements that are not logically inconsistent, but have consquences in the real world

49
Q

a sound argument

A
  • each of the statements that make up the argument must be acceptable
  • the reasoning underlying the argument must be valid
  • the argument scheme must be appropriate and correctly used
50
Q

argumentation based on a symptomatic relation

A
  • y is true of x, because z is true of x and z is symptomatic of y
  • aren’t there non-y’s that have characteristic x?
  • aren’t there also other y’s that have characteristic x?
51
Q

argumentation based on a relation of analogy

A
  • y is true of x, because y is true of z and z is comparable to x.
  • are there any significant differences between z and x?
52
Q

argumentation based on a causal relation

A
  • Y is true of x, because z is true of x and z leads to x.

- does z always lead to x?

argumentation discourse (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions