Main Types of Argumentation
- 1- Deductive Argumentation Deductive argumentation is the best kind of argumentation because it draws conclusions from premises that are verifiable and verifiable. ...
- 2- Inductive argumentation ...
- 3 - Abductive Argumentation ...
- 4- Argumentation by analogy ...
What are the three types of arguments?
Arguments have a vast amount of purposes and a variety of manifestations, and can be divided into three basic categories: forensic, deliberative and epideictic. Forensic arguments focus on events in the past, for example historians frequently use forensic arguments in order to construct a vision on the past.
What are the different styles of argument?
Types of Argument Syles
- Rhetorical. The rhetorical side of argument consists of everything we do through voice tone, diction and body language to persuade people of the validity of a position.
- Logical. The logical aspect of argument is the set of inference rules we use to arrive at logical conclusions.
- Fallacious. ...
- Social Argumentation Styles. ...
What are the different types of arguments?
Types Of Argument
- Deductive Argument. The most interesting and probably the most powerful kind of argument is the deductive argument. ...
- Inductive Argument. The limitation of deductive argument is fulfilled by the inductive argument. ...
- Argument By Analogy. ...
- Argument From Sign. ...
What are the three types of argument structure?
Toulmin Method
- Data (Grounds): You should use evidence to support the claim. ...
- Warrant (Bridge): In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. ...
- Backing (Foundation): Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.
What are the three statements in the first argument?
How many valid arguments are there?
Which of Euclid's elements is the most common argument?
What do the vowels and consonants in a name tell us?
What is the most common form of argument?
Modus Ponens (MP) If p is a sufficient condition of q, and p is true, then q must be true. Modus ponens is one of the most commonly used valid forms.
What are the forms of argumentation?
Different Types Of Arguments: Deductive And Inductive ArgumentsType 1: Deductive Arguments.Type 2: Inductive Arguments.Type 3: Toulmin Argument.Type 4: Rogerian Argument.
What are the five valid argument forms?
Five valid propositional formsModus ponens (MP)Modus tollens (MT)Hypothetical syllogism (HS)Disjunctive syllogism (DS)Constructive dilemma (CD)
What is the form of a valid argument?
An argument form is valid if, no matter what particular statements are substituted for the statement variables in its premises, whenever the resulting premises are all true, the conclusion is also true.
What are the 3 main types of arguments?
There are three basic structures or types of argument you are likely to encounter in college: the Toulmin argument, the Rogerian argument, and the Classical or Aristotelian argument. Although the Toulmin method was originally developed to analyze arguments, some professors will ask you to model its components.
What is argument and argument form?
Argument and argument forms. Definition An argument is a sequence of propositions that ends. with a conclusion. All but the last statements are called premises. An argument is valid if the truth of the premises implies that the.
Which is not a valid form of argument?
Common Invalid Argument Forms: There are two very common INVALID argument forms which look a lot like modus ponens and modus tollens, but are mistaken. Arguments with this form are generally invalid. This form of argument is called “affirming the consequent”.
What are the 2 types of inductive arguments?
Here are a few common types: Inductive generalization: You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from. Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
What is a deductive argument form?
A deductive argument is a logic construct with two or more premises and a conclusion where if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. In philosophy, if the truth of the conclusion is fully established by the premises, then the argument is called valid.
How do you form a logical argument?
There are three stages to creating a logical argument: Premise, inference, and conclusion. The premise defines the evidence, or the reasons, that exist for proving your statement. Premises often start with words like “because”, “since”, “obviously” and so on.
What is reasoning argument?
Reasoning is the process of inference; it is the process of passing from. certain propositions already known or assumed to be true, to another. truth distinct from them but following from them; it is a discourse or. argument which infers one proposition from another, or from a group.
What is argument in logic with example?
Premise 1: A car will not run without gas. Premise 2: I don't have any gas in my car. Conclusion: My car will not run. In the above example, both premises are true (facts) and the conclusion is valid, meaning it follows logically from the two premises.
What are the 4 structures of an argument?
StructurePremise.Turnstile.Conclusion.
What are the six arguments?
Developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, the Toulmin method is a style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing.
What are the four parts of an argument?
Arguments can be divided into four general components: claim, reason, support, and warrant. Claims are statements about what is true or good or about what should be done or believed. Claims are potentially arguable.
What are argumentative techniques?
General technique of argumentative writing: Offers the reader relevant reasons, credible facts, and sufficient evidence to support that the writer has a valid and worthy perspective. Starting point of argumentative writing: Research a topic and then align with one side.
1. Causal argument
A causal argument is a type of argument used to persuade someone or a group of people that one thing has caused something else. This type of argument focuses on how something occurred and how a problem arose as a result of that occurrence.
2. Rebuttal argument
A rebuttal argument is centered on refuting an idea or belief that has been present up until this point in time. This type of argument often involves including why a particular idea or belief is flawed and how you feel it can be fixed or changed.
3. Proposal argument
A proposal argument is one in which a person proposes a particular solution to a specific issue. This argument should include the establishment of a problem, the details of the proposal and reasons why the proposal is a good idea. For example, an employee may make a proposal argument that proposes a new way to increase customer retention rates.
4. Evaluation argument
An evaluation argument is an argument that is used to evaluate whether a particular element is "good" or "bad." For this argument to work, those participating in the argument must first come to an agreement as to the criteria of "good" and "bad." For example, you may make a list of the most widely recognized standards or protocols for judging a particular issue..
5. Narrative argument
A narrative argument is an argument in which an individual states their case by telling a story that illustrates a point directly related to the argument. Unlike other arguments which rely solely on figures and facts, narrative arguments allow individuals to use a narrative to express their stance on a particular issue.
6. Toulmin argument
The Toulmin argument was developed by Stephen E. Toulmin and is an argument that is composed of six different parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal and backing.
7. Rogerian argument
A Rogerian argument is an argument used to determine the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the interests and needs of all parties involved. This type of argument is used to help those with opposing viewpoints reach a common ground by allowing them to look at a situation from a different perspective.
What is an argument?
An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where some parts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, the conclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complex speech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assert propositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and a stated or implicit marker (“hence”, “therefore”) that indicates that the conclusion follows from the premises (Hitchcock 2007). [ 1] The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).
Why is argumentation important?
We speak of argumentation as an epistemic practice when we take its primary purpose to be that of improving our beliefs and increasing knowledge, or of fostering understanding. To engage in argumentation can be a way to acquire more accurate beliefs: by examining critically reasons for and against a given position, we would be able to weed out weaker, poorly justified beliefs (likely to be false) and end up with stronger, suitably justified beliefs (likely to be true). From this perspective, the goal of engaging in argumentation is to learn, i.e., to improve one’s epistemic position (as opposed to argumentation “to win” (Fisher & Keil 2016)). Indeed, argumentation is often said to be truth-conducive (Betz 2013).
What is the relation between premises and conclusion?
The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).
What is the fallacy of begging the question?
The fallacy of begging the question, when one of the premises and the conclusion of an argument are the same proposition, but differently formulated. The fallacy of appeal to authority, when a claim is supported by reference to an authority instead of offering reasons to support it.
What is analogy in legal reasoning?
Arguments by analogy are based on the idea that, if two things are similar, what is true of one of them is likely to be true of the other as well (see entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ). Analogical arguments are widely used across different domains of human activity, for example in legal contexts (see entry on precedent and analogy in legal reasoning ). As an example, take an argument for the wrongness of farming non-human animals for food consumption: if an alien species farmed humans for food, that would be wrong; so, by analogy, it is wrong for us humans to farm non-human animals for food. The general idea is captured in the following schema (adapted from the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ; S is the source domain and T the target domain of the analogy):
What is a valid deductive argument?
Valid deductive arguments are those where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion: the conclusion cannot but be true if the premises are true. Arguments having this property are said to be deductively valid. A valid argument whose premises are also true is said to be sound.
What is the term used to describe exchange of arguments?
The term generally used for instances of exchange of arguments is argumentation. In what follows, the convention of using “argument” to refer to structures of premises and conclusion, and “argumentation” to refer to human practices and activities where arguments occur as communicative actions will be adopted.
What is the ad hominem fallacy?
Ad hominem fallacies usually happen when we attack the person who made the argument in an attempt to discredit what s/he said or wrote, instead of attacking the argument on its merits. If convicted former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling makes an argument about how the United States could be more energy efficient by relying on ethanol, I would commit the ad hominem fallacy if I were to say, “Why should we believe anything this ethically-challenged guy says?” I haven’t addressed his argument on its merits; I’ve merely tried to discredit it for my audience by casting aspersions on Skilling. Ad hominem critiques can be directed at individuals, religious sects, races, ethnic groups, and even nations. (3)
What does "beg the question" mean?
Begging the question —When we beg the question, we use evidence that is essentially the same as the claim. We also refer to begging the question as a circular argument. As Ted Talk speaker David Kelley reminds us, “The point of reasoning is to throw light on the truth or falsity of a proposition…by relating it to other propositions…that we already have some basis for believing to be true. If our reasoning does nothing more than relate [the proposition] to itself, then it hasn’t gained us anything.”
What is the ecological fallacy?
Ecological fallacy —This is an easy fallacy to commit. It refers to making conclusions about a person based on aggregate data that is relevant to that person. Aggregate data is information compiled into summaries for public reporting and cannot be used to make definitive statements about an individual. Here’s a great example: “Imagine two small towns, each with only one hundred people. Town A has ninety-nine people earning $80,000 a year and one super-wealthy person who struck oil on her property, earning $5,000,000 a year. Town B has fifty people earning $100,000 a year and fifty people earning $140,000. The mean income of Town A is $129,200, and the mean income of Town B is $120,000. Although Town A has a higher mean income, in ninety-nine out of one hundred cases, any individual you select randomly from Town B will have a higher income than an individual selected randomly from Town A. The ecological fallacy is thinking that if you select someone at random from the group with the higher mean, that individual is likely to have a higher income.” (7)
What is the reductive fallacy?
Reductive fallacy —We commit this fallacy when we try to address complex issues with simple solutions. Someone might say that the key to solving poverty is to “make lazy people work.” Or, to end terrorism, we should “bomb the Middle East back to the Stone Age.” Or, to have a world-class public education system, we just need to “get back to the basics.” Issues like poverty, terrorism, and educational achievement gaps are tremendously complicated, and we are not likely to solve them with the public policy equivalents of bumper sticker slogans.
Is appeal to majority a fallacy?
Appeal to majority —It is a fallacy to say that when many people believe a claim to be true, it is evidence of its truth. Actually, an idea’s popularity says nothing about its validity, otherwise we might still believe that the earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. The majority can be wrong. Indeed, it often is.
What are the three statements in the first argument?
Note that all three statements in our first argument—the two premises and the conclusion—are Astatements: BARBARA. We could also call it an AAA argument, or, simply, an AA argument, since it is according to the kind and arrangement of the premises by which we categorize arguments.
How many valid arguments are there?
But of these 64 kinds of arguments, only 19 are valid. Validity just means that the argument is structured so that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also necessarily be true. Of the 64 possible arguments, only 19 of them are structured this way. In the other forms—the invalid forms—there is no guarantee that the conclusion is true if the premises are true.
Which of Euclid's elements is the most common argument?
Of these five common argument forms, the first, BARBARA, is the most common. Most of the arguments in Euclid’s Elements, for example, the great classical work on analytic geometry, are BARBARAs.
What do the vowels and consonants in a name tell us?
The names are not accidental. The vowels and some of the consonants in each name tell us something about each syllogism. The advanced logic student learns what these letters mean. But the most basic thing they tell you is what kind of statements make up each argument.
Causal Argument
- A causal argument is a type of argument used to persuade someone or a group of people that one thing has caused something else. This type of argument focuses on how something occurred and how a problem arose as a result of that occurrence. This argument type is important because it helps people determine the reasons why certain things happen and to...
Rebuttal Argument
- A rebuttal argument is centered on refuting an idea or belief that has been present up until this point in time. This type of argument often involves including why a particular idea or belief is flawed and how you feel it can be fixed or changed. Most rebuttal arguments include a statement of the counterargument, a statement regarding your position and how it's different from the cou…
Proposal Argument
- A proposal argument is one in which a person proposes a particular solution to a specific issue. This argument should include the establishment of a problem, the details of the proposal and reasons why the proposal is a good idea. For example, an employee may make a proposal argument that proposes a new way to increase customer retention rates. Related: 26 Logical Fal…
Evaluation Argument
- An evaluation argument is an argument that is used to evaluate whether a particular element is "good" or "bad." For this argument to work, those participating in the argument must first come to an agreement as to the criteria of "good" and "bad." For example, you may make a list of the most widely recognized standards or protocols for judging a particular issue.
Narrative Argument
- A narrative argument is an argument in which an individual states their case by telling a story that illustrates a point directly related to the argument. Unlike other arguments which rely solely on figures and facts, narrative arguments allow individuals to use a narrative to express their stance on a particular issue. For example, an employee may describe their experience with another com…
Toulmin Argument
- The Toulmin argument was developed by Stephen E. Toulmin and is an argument that is composed of six different parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal and backing. In this argument, the claim is what the arguer wishes to prove; the grounds of the argument are the facts and evidence that support the claim; the warrant is what links the grounds to the claim; the backi…
Rogerian Argument
- A Rogerian argument is an argument used to determine the best possible solution to a particular issue based on the interests and needs of all parties involved. This type of argument is used to help those with opposing viewpoints reach a common ground by allowing them to look at a situation from a different perspective. In a Rogerian argument, both parties acknowledge the op…
Classical Western Argument
- A classical Western argument is used to persuade a group of people of the validity of an argument and/or reveal the truths that define or affect the argument. This is a basic type of persuasive argument and typically includes five different components: an introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and a conclusion. Classical arguments are often used when an individu…
Terminological Clarifications
- An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where someparts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, theconclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complexspeech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assertpropositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and astated or implicit marker (“hence”,“therefore”…
Types of Arguments
- Arguments come in many kinds. In some of them, the truth of thepremises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, andthese are known as deductive arguments. In others, the truthof the premises should make the truth of the conclusion more likelywhile not ensuring complete certainty; two well-known classes of sucharguments are inductive a...
Types of Argumentation
- Just as there are different types of arguments, there are differenttypes of argumentative situations, depending on the communicativegoals of the persons involved and background conditions. Argumentationmay occur when people are trying to reach consensus in a situation ofdissent, but it may also occur when scientists discuss their findingswith each other (to name …
Argumentation Across Fields of Inquiry and Social Practices
- Argumentation is practiced and studied in many fields of inquiry;philosophers interested in argumentation have much to benefit fromengaging with these bodies of research as well.
Further Topics
- Argumentation is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and the literature onarguments and argumentation is massive and varied. This entry can onlyscratch the surface of the richness of this material, and manyinteresting, relevant topics must be left out for reasons of space. Inthis final section, a selection of topics that are likely to attractconsiderable interest in future researc…
Conclusion
- Argument and argumentation are multifaceted phenomena that haveattracted the interest of philosophers as well as scholars in otherfields for millennia, and continue to be studied extensively invarious domains. This entry presents an overview of the main strandsin these discussions, while acknowledging the impossibility of fullydoing justice to the enormous literatu…