Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THEORY
DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS,
CLASSIFICATIONS,
EXAMPLES
Argumentation embraces fields /
arts such as:
• debate and negotiation;
• dialogue;
• conversation;
• persuasion;
• information seeking;
• inquiry;
• deliberation;
ARGUMENTATION & DEMONSTRATION
- Argumentation represents a fundamental concept in
various domains such as: Rhetoric, Logic, the
Philosophy of Language, Linguistics, Pragmatics, but
beyond its specificity, it is intrinsically related to the
human activity – the authority and the personality the
emitter proves and the quality of the receiver’s
perception and response.
- Argumentation always aims at persuading or
convincing the audience (to whom it is addressed) of
the value of the theses for which it seeks assent.
- Unlike demonstration, argumentation cannot be
conceived in an impersonal manner. Because the purpose
of all argumentation is to gain or reinforce the adherence
of an audience, it must be prepared taking into account this
very audience. On the contrary, in order to have any
effectiveness, it is essential for it to be adapted to the
audience’s perspectives, comprehension, age, social status,
education, needs and aspirations, etc. Consequently, the
orator / the person who presents an argument to the
audience must seek to build his argumentative discourse on
theses already accepted by his audience.
- Demonstration represents a method of explaining
something by example.
Argumentation studies:
• rules of inference*;
• rules of logic;
• procedural rules in both artificial and
real world settings.
*to infer / to make an inference = to form an
opinion that something is probably true
because of information that you have
(Longman Dictionary)
Definition:
• Argumentation is concerned primarily
with reaching conclusions through
logical reasoning, that is, claims based
on premises.
Main steps of argumentation
•
Understanding and identifying arguments
(either explicit or implied), and the goals of
the participants in the different types of
dialogue;
•
Identifying the premises from which
conclusions are derived;
•
Establishing the “burden of proof" -
determining who made the initial claim and is
thus responsible for providing evidence why
his / her position merits acceptance;
•
Gathering evidence (i.e. fact checking) for his/her position
in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance (by
producing valid/sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of
weaknesses, and not easily attacked);
•
In a debate, fulfilling the burden of proof so as to create
a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty
reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the
reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counter
examples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies,
and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived
from the reasons provided for his/her argument.
Components of Argument
with pills
- Branded uniforms in school
- Verbal Violence on TV
- Buying a house nowadays
- Drunk driving (the controversial legal
limit)
- Animal experiments / testing
- Women in the army
Types of Arguments
In brief, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca* establish the
following taxonomy of arguments:
- quasi-logical arguments,
- arguments based on the structure of the real,
- arguments to generate the configuration of the real,
- and arguments based on the delimitation of notions.
According to the opinion of the above-mentioned authors, the starting point
in argumentation is the concept of “agreement” supported by truths, facts
and surmisings* (subordinated to the real), and by values, hierarchies and
topoi* (related to the preferential).
* Chaïm Perelman, Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, La nouvelle rhétorique; Traité de
l’Argumentation, P.U.F., Paris, pp. 259-610
* to surmise = to guess that something is true, using the information you know already
* topoi = [plural form of topos] a rhetorical convention; a motif in literature
Valid & Invalid Arguments
• Valid / Sound Arguments:
P1 - All politicians are liars.
P2 - Jim is a politician.
C - Hence, Jim is a liar.
• Invalid / Unsound Arguments:
P1 – All politicians are liars.
P2 – All used car-salesmen are liars.
C - All used car-salesmen are politicians.
Another distinction establishes:
• Deductive arguments asserting that the truth
of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises → if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true; it is impossible for the
premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus,
the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises and inferences.
• With deductive arguments / syllogisms, our
conclusions are already contained (even if
implicitly) in our premises.
• From generals to particulars.
Example of Deductive Argument: