Flashcards in Argumentation Theory Deck (39):
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's New Rheotric, Toulmin's The Uses of Argument
Van Eemeren and Grootendorst's Pragma-dialectical approach, "The Amsterdam School"
Data----------->Claim; warrant, backing, qualifiers, rebuttal
"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
always conditional; provides evidence of statements
support for the warrant
a statement that is normally singular
a statement that has doubts
Point of view
the pragma-dialectical term for claim
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
Pragma-dialectical division of schemes
Symptomatic, comparison, and causal relation
Symptomatic division of schemes
mentioning in the standpoint that a specific characteristic of the premise is a typical quality
Ex. Argument from authority
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
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
find something intrinsically wrong with the argument and attack it at that point
if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the argument, provide your own argument
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
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?
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
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?
Argument from example
used to support a generalization
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?
Argument from correlation to cause
there is a positive correlation between A and B, therefore A causes B
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?
Argument from cause to effect
Generally, if A occurs, then B will occur. In this case, A occurs, therefore B will occur
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?
Argument from analogy
p(A) --> A sim B --> p(b)
p(A) --> p sim p' --> p'(A)
Argument from analogy CQs
Is p really of A?
Is m p (A)?
Is A essentially similar to B?
Levels of critical questions
Burden of proof
Burden of proof
What do I need to prove in order to convince the other side?
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)
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?
changing the model qualifier in front of the p
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
what you do with the schemes; can be serial, linked, or convergent
premises that are not explicitly stated; used because it would be boring and redundant to spell out every single argument