Argumentation Theory Flashcards Preview

Legal Argumentation > Argumentation Theory > Flashcards

Flashcards in Argumentation Theory Deck (39):
1

1958

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

2

1970

Hamblin

3

1980s

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst's Pragma-dialectical approach, "The Amsterdam School"

4

Toulmin Scheme

Data----------->Claim; warrant, backing, qualifiers, rebuttal

5

Qualifier

"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

6

Rebuttal

"X"

7

Warrant

always conditional; provides evidence of statements

8

Backing

support for the warrant

9

Data

a statement that is normally singular

10

Claim

a statement that has doubts

11

Point of view

the pragma-dialectical term for claim

12

Functions of argument schemes

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

13

Pragma-dialectical division of schemes

Symptomatic, comparison, and causal relation

14

Symptomatic division of schemes

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

15

Comparison division of schemes

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

16

Causal relation division of schemes

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

17

Critical question/objection

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

18

Counterargument

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

19

Argument from sign

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

20

Argument from sign CQs

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?

21

Argument from position to know

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

22

Argument from position to know CQs

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

23

Argument from example

used to support a generalization

24

Argument from example QCs

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?

25

Argument from correlation to cause

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

26

Argument from correlation to cause CQs

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?

27

Argument from cause to effect

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

28

Argument from cause to effect CQs

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?

29

Argument from analogy

p(A) --> A sim B --> p(b)
p(A) --> p sim p' --> p'(A)

30

Argument from analogy CQs

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

31

Levels of critical questions

Burden of proof
Process
Product

32

Burden of proof

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

33

Process

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)

34

Product

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?

35

Naturalistic fallacy

changing the model qualifier in front of the p

36

Argument from authority vs Argument from indirect authority

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

37

Argument structures

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

38

Unexpressed premises

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

39

Principle of Charity/Maximally argumentative analysis

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