Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 6 (the Soundness of Argumentation)

8/6/2019 Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 6 (the Soundness of Argumentation)

1/30

Fundamentals ofFundamentals of

Argumentation TheoryArgumentation TheoryThe Soundness ofThe Soundness of

ArgumentationArgumentation


2/30

The Soundness of ArgumentationThe Soundness of Argumentation

Evaluating Argumentation:Evaluating Argumentation:

> first step: check the argumentation for logical and> first step: check the argumentation for logical andpragmatic inconsistenciespragmatic inconsistencies

> second step: assess each single argument in turn so as> second step: assess each single argument in turn so asto determine whether it is based on valid reasoningto determine whether it is based on valid reasoning any anyunexpressed elements must be made explicitunexpressed elements must be made explicit

> third step: determine whether the constitutive> third step: determine whether the constitutiveargumentative statements are acceptable and whether allargumentative statements are acceptable and whether all

the critical questions that are relevant for the argumentthe critical questions that are relevant for the argumentscheme that is used can be answered.scheme that is used can be answered.


3/30


1.1Evaluating Argumentative Discourse1.1Evaluating Argumentative Discourse

To assess the soundness of the argumentation (i.e., to determineTo assess the soundness of the argumentation (i.e., to determinewhether the standpoint has been conclusively defended), onewhether the standpoint has been conclusively defended), onemust first check for weaknessesmust first check for weaknesses

e.g., contradictions in the argumentation as a whole,e.g., contradictions in the argumentation as a whole,unacceptable or flawed arguments etc.unacceptable or flawed arguments etc.

The type of argumentation influences the import of its weakness:The type of argumentation influences the import of its weakness:

>> Coordinative argumentationCoordinative argumentation: if one part of this type of: if one part of this type ofargumentation is flawed, then the whole defense is weakened.argumentation is flawed, then the whole defense is weakened.

>> Multiple argumentationMultiple argumentation: even if one part of this type of: even if one part of this type ofargumentation is flawed, the rest of it still stands si there is aargumentation is flawed, the rest of it still stands si there is agood chance for the defense to be conclusive.good chance for the defense to be conclusive.

>> Subordinative argumentationSubordinative argumentation: one weak link in the chain of: one weak link in the chain ofarguments undermines the strength of the whole.arguments undermines the strength of the whole.


4/30


All complex argumentation must beAll complex argumentation must bebroken down into single arguments,broken down into single arguments,

each of which must be assessed.each of which must be assessed. However, do not proceed to theHowever, do not proceed to the

assessment of any of the individualassessment of any of the individualarguments before determiningarguments before determining

whether the argumentation as awhether the argumentation as awhole is consistent.whole is consistent.


5/30


Inconsistencies are of two kinds: logical & pragmaticalInconsistencies are of two kinds: logical & pragmatical

Logical inconsistenciesLogical inconsistencies: when the statements are made in such a way that: when the statements are made in such a way thatthey contradict each otherthey contradict each other

(1)(1) Last weeksLast weeks Open ForumOpen Forum magazine has two articles defending the importance ofmagazine has two articles defending the importance ofandrogology. What is androgology? The objective of this academic discipline is toandrogology. What is androgology? The objective of this academic discipline is toimprove the competence of social workers. Who are social workers? According toimprove the competence of social workers. Who are social workers? According toone of the articles, they are people who activelyone of the articles, they are people who actively try to influencetry to influence the behaviour ofthe behaviour ofthe disadvantaged children they work with. According to the other article, theythe disadvantaged children they work with. According to the other article, theyare people whoare people who do not try to influencedo not try to influence their clients behaviour. So what, then,their clients behaviour. So what, then,is androgology? It remains a mystery to me.is androgology? It remains a mystery to me.

Pragmatic inconsistenciesPragmatic inconsistencies: when the argumentation contains two statements: when the argumentation contains two statementsthat, although not logically inconsistent, have consequences in the real worldthat, although not logically inconsistent, have consequences in the real worldthat are contradictorythat are contradictory

(2) Ill pick you up in the car. + I dont know how to drive.(2) Ill pick you up in the car. + I dont know how to drive. the first sentence does not the first sentence does notcontradict the second sentence in a strictly logical sense. However, in everyday conversation it iscontradict the second sentence in a strictly logical sense. However, in everyday conversation it isunacceptable for such a promise to be followed by the second statementsunacceptable for such a promise to be followed by the second statements


6/30


After having identified the logical and pragmatic inconsistencies,After having identified the logical and pragmatic inconsistencies,one can move on to the assessment of the individual singleone can move on to the assessment of the individual singlearguments that make up the argumentative discourse.arguments that make up the argumentative discourse.

The soundness of these single arguments is judged by what theyThe soundness of these single arguments is judged by what theycontribute to increasing the acceptability of the standpoint i.e.,contribute to increasing the acceptability of the standpoint i.e.,each argument must be judged according to the degree in which iteach argument must be judged according to the degree in which it

justifies (or refutes) the proposition to which the standpointjustifies (or refutes) the proposition to which the standpointrefers.refers.

A sound argument must meet 3 requirements:A sound argument must meet 3 requirements:

Each of the statements that make up the argument must be

Each of the statements that make up the argument must beacceptable.acceptable.

The reasoning underlying the argument must be validThe reasoning underlying the argument must be valid The argument scheme employed must be appropriate and correctlyThe argument scheme employed must be appropriate and correctly

used.used.


7/30


1.2 The Acceptability of Argumentative Statements1.2 The Acceptability of Argumentative Statements

The acceptability of some statements is easier to determine:The acceptability of some statements is easier to determine:

e.g., factual statementse.g., factual statements their acceptability may be verified by consulting an encyclopedia or other their acceptability may be verified by consulting an encyclopedia or otherreference work, by carrying out an experiment, or by careful observation.reference work, by carrying out an experiment, or by careful observation.

(3) Pailleron was a nineteenth(3) Pailleron was a nineteenth--century French dramatist.century French dramatist.

A palindrome is a word that can be read backwards as well as forwards.A palindrome is a word that can be read backwards as well as forwards.

Level is a palindrome.Level is a palindrome.

Porcelain is very fragile.Porcelain is very fragile.

Tommy, the cat, weighs exactly six pounds.Tommy, the cat, weighs exactly six pounds.

The acceptability of some nonThe acceptability of some non--factual statements can also be sometimes easy to verifyfactual statements can also be sometimes easy to verify

-- E.g., commonplace values or judgementsE.g., commonplace values or judgements

(4) Parents should take care of their children.(4) Parents should take care of their children.

You shouldnt give up when your goal is in reach.You shouldnt give up when your goal is in reach.

Good quality is always superior to junk.Good quality is always superior to junk.


8/30


The acceptability of most nonThe acceptability of most non--factual statements is more difficultfactual statements is more difficultto agree on, particularly if they involve a complex matter or ifto agree on, particularly if they involve a complex matter or ifthey are strongly tied to particular values or norms:they are strongly tied to particular values or norms:

(5) Reading is the best way to improve your language skills.(5) Reading is the best way to improve your language skills.In many instances cancer is caused by stress.In many instances cancer is caused by stress.A man shouldnt be pushing a baby carriage.A man shouldnt be pushing a baby carriage.Its good for the child if the mother works.Its good for the child if the mother works.Its not good for the child if the mother works.Its not good for the child if the mother works.

if such statements are not supported by further argumentation, the speakers if such statements are not supported by further argumentation, the speakersargumentation as a whole might not be accepted as an adequate defense (orargumentation as a whole might not be accepted as an adequate defense (or

refutation) of the standpoint.refutation) of the standpoint.

when evaluating argumentation, special attention should be paid to statements like when evaluating argumentation, special attention should be paid to statements likethese that are not supported by further argumentationthese that are not supported by further argumentation


9/30


1.3 The Validity of Reasoning1.3 The Validity of Reasoning

An argument can be considered sound only if theAn argument can be considered sound only if theunderlying reasoning is logically valid or can be made thatunderlying reasoning is logically valid or can be made thatwayway if the underlying reasoning is invalid, then theif the underlying reasoning is invalid, then the

argument is not an acceptable defense or refutationargument is not an acceptable defense or refutation There is only one situation in which an argument cannot beThere is only one situation in which an argument cannot be

reconstructed as being based on valid reasoningreconstructed as being based on valid reasoning if the if theinvalid reasoning is put forward explicitlyinvalid reasoning is put forward explicitly

Reasoning that seems incomplete may almost always be completed in aReasoning that seems incomplete may almost always be completed in away that renders it logically validway that renders it logically valid

e.g., if a premise has been left unexpressed solution: add to the argumente.g., if a premise has been left unexpressed solution: add to the argumentthe appropriate if.then statementthe appropriate if.then statement


10/30


It seldom happens that invalid reasoning is put forward explicitlyIt seldom happens that invalid reasoning is put forward explicitly

e.g.,e.g., 1. If there is a God, then I will have a healthy baby.1. If there is a God, then I will have a healthy baby.

2. God doesnt exist.2. God doesnt exist.

ThereforeTherefore 3. I will not have a healthy baby.3. I will not have a healthy baby.

the form of this invalid reasoning departs from the standard Ifthen logical argument known the form of this invalid reasoning departs from the standard Ifthen logical argument knownby the name ofby the name ofmodus ponensmodus ponens andand modus tollens:modus tollens:

Modus ponens: Modus tollens Modus ponens: Modus tollens

1. If___, then 1. If _____, then.1. If___, then 1. If _____, then.

2. ____ 2. Not..2. ____ 2. Not..

ThereforeTherefore 3. 3. ThereforeTherefore 3. Not _____3. Not _____

Both types of reasoning above are valid, regardless of how the dots and dashes are filled inBoth types of reasoning above are valid, regardless of how the dots and dashes are filled inprovided that the same thing is filled in both times for the dots and for the dashes.provided that the same thing is filled in both times for the dots and for the dashes.


11/30


1.4 The Use of Argument Schemes1.4 The Use of Argument Schemes

The fact that a single argument is basedThe fact that a single argument is based

onvalid reasoning does not necessarilyonvalid reasoning does not necessarilyguarantee that the argument is conclusiveguarantee that the argument is conclusive

as a defense or refutationas a defense or refutation the soundness of the soundness ofargumentation also depends on how it employs one ofargumentation also depends on how it employs one ofthe possible argument schemes.the possible argument schemes.

By means of theBy means of the argument scheme,argument scheme, the argumentsthe argumentsand the standpoint which is being defended are linkedand the standpoint which is being defended are linkedtogether in a specific waytogether in a specific way


12/30

The Soundness of ArgumentationThe Soundness of Argumentation Three types ofarguments schemes:Three types ofarguments schemes: they characterize three different types of argumentationthey characterize three different types of argumentation

The argumentation is linked to the standpoint by claiming that one thing isThe argumentation is linked to the standpoint by claiming that one thing issymptomaticsymptomatic of another thing:of another thing:

(6) 1. Herman is a real man.(6) 1. Herman is a real man.

1.1. Herman is a macho.1.1. Herman is a macho.

(1.1). (Being macho is characteristic of real men.)(1.1). (Being macho is characteristic of real men.)

One may makeOne may make an analogyan analogy between one thing and another:between one thing and another:

(7) 2. A lottery for entrance to the university is absurd.(7) 2. A lottery for entrance to the university is absurd.

2.1. A lottery is not used to determine who gets to participate in the Olympic games either.2.1. A lottery is not used to determine who gets to participate in the Olympic games either.

(2.1). (At universities the same standards apply as in sports.)(2.1). (At universities the same standards apply as in sports.)

One may present one thing as being theOne may present one thing as being the causecause of another:of another:

(8) 3. Ronalds headache will go away now.(8) 3. Ronalds headache will go away now.3.1. He has just taken two aspirins.3.1. He has just taken two aspirins.

(3.1). (Aspirins make headaches go away.)(3.1). (Aspirins make headaches go away.)

> For each type or argumentation, different criteria of soundness are applicable (therefore certain critical> For each type or argumentation, different criteria of soundness are applicable (therefore certain criticalquestions must be asked) for an adequate evaluation it is essential to carefully distinguish the main typesquestions must be asked) for an adequate evaluation it is essential to carefully distinguish the main typesof argumentationof argumentation


13/30


1. Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation1. Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation

A standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign,A standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign,symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint + onsymptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint + onthe grounds of this concomitance, the speaker claims that the standpointthe grounds of this concomitance, the speaker claims that the standpointshould be accepted. (one thing implies the other)should be accepted. (one thing implies the other)

(9) Jack is an experienced teacher, because he spends hardly any time on(9) Jack is an experienced teacher, because he spends hardly any time onlesson preparation. (And little time spent on lesson preparation islesson preparation. (And little time spent on lesson preparation ischaracteristic of experienced teachers.)characteristic of experienced teachers.)

the fact that John spends little time on lesson preparation is presented as a sign of his the fact that John spends little time on lesson preparation is presented as a sign of histeaching experience. The explicitized unexpressed premise make it clear that the relationteaching experience. The explicitized unexpressed premise make it clear that the relationbetween the argumentation and the standpoint is one of concomitance: Little time spent onbetween the argumentation and the standpoint is one of concomitance: Little time spent on

lesson preparation is characteristic of experienced teachers.lesson preparation is characteristic of experienced teachers.

In argument schemes based on a symptomatic relation, one presents theIn argument schemes based on a symptomatic relation, one presents thetrait as typical of a certain group, of a certain situation, or as an inherenttrait as typical of a certain group, of a certain situation, or as an inherentquality of a certain personalityquality of a certain personality


14/30


Evaluating an argumentation based on a symptomatic relation:Evaluating an argumentation based on a symptomatic relation:e.g., (9)e.g., (9)

-- firstly: establish whether it is true that Jack spends little time onfirstly: establish whether it is true that Jack spends little time onlesson preparationlesson preparation

-- secondly: check on the soundness of the symptomatic relation: issecondly: check on the soundness of the symptomatic relation: isit as strong as suggested?it as strong as suggested?

Are experienced teachers the only teachers who spend little time with Are experienced teachers the only teachers who spend little time withlesson preparation?lesson preparation? > if there are certain groups of inexperienced teachers who also> if there are certain groups of inexperienced teachers who alsospend little time on lesson preparation, then Jacks limited preparation is notspend little time on lesson preparation, then Jacks limited preparation is not

necessarily a sign of his experience, but a sign of something else (e.g., laziness)necessarily a sign of his experience, but a sign of something else (e.g., laziness)

Is it really true that experienced teachers spend little time on lesson Is it really true that experienced teachers spend little time on lessonpreparation? Arent there also experienced teachers who spend a lot of timepreparation? Arent there also experienced teachers who spend a lot of timepreparing their lessons?preparing their lessons?


15/30


The general argument scheme for the symptomaticThe general argument scheme for the symptomaticrelation:relation:

Y is true of XY is true of XBecause: Z is true of XBecause: Z is true of X

And: Z is symptomatic for YAnd: Z is symptomatic for Y

The most critical questions to ask about an argumentationThe most critical questions to ask about an argumentationbased on a symptomatic relation:based on a symptomatic relation:

-- Arent there also other Ys that have the characteristic Z?Arent there also other Ys that have the characteristic Z?-- Arent there also other Ys that do not have theArent there also other Ys that do not have the

characteristic Z?characteristic Z?


16/30


The same relation of concomitance can beThe same relation of concomitance can bealso used in thealso used in the opposite direction,opposite direction, bybymentioning the symptom in the standpointmentioning the symptom in the standpoint

rather than in the argument:rather than in the argument:

(10) Jack hardly spends any time on lesson(10) Jack hardly spends any time on lesson

preparation, because he is an experiencedpreparation, because he is an experiencedteacher. (And experienced teachers spendteacher. (And experienced teachers spendlittle time on lesson preparation)little time on lesson preparation)


17/30

The Soundness of ArgumentationThe Soundness of Argumentation Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation may occur in various ways:Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation may occur in various ways:

-- Something done by somebody can be presented asSomething done by somebody can be presented as typicaltypical of his or her character:of his or her character:

(11) Sarah is a bitch: she almost exploded when she heard that Leah did pass her exam.(11) Sarah is a bitch: she almost exploded when she heard that Leah did pass her exam.

-- A certain phenomenon can also be presented asA certain phenomenon can also be presented as aasymptomsymptom oror aa signsign of somethingof somethingmore general:more general:

(12) The behaviour of hooligans makes clear that our society has become much more(12) The behaviour of hooligans makes clear that our society has become much moreviolent.violent.

-- The argumentation may be based on anThe argumentation may be based on an example.example. Then a generalization is made orThen a generalization is made ora rule is introduced, by presenting a number of separate cases as indicative ofa rule is introduced, by presenting a number of separate cases as indicative ofsomething general:something general:

(13) When people are over fifty this does not mean that their emotional life has become(13) When people are over fifty this does not mean that their emotional life has become

more active or that it has disappeared. Romantic feelings can govern our lives untilmore active or that it has disappeared. Romantic feelings can govern our lives untilwe are very old. Did Picasso at the end of his life not write splendid letters to hiswe are very old. Did Picasso at the end of his life not write splendid letters to hisyoung lover and did Richard Strauss not create his most lyrical songs when he wasyoung lover and did Richard Strauss not create his most lyrical songs when he wasalready over eighty?already over eighty? evaluation becomes more specific: one has to establish whether the casesevaluation becomes more specific: one has to establish whether the cases

mentioned as examples are indeed representative & whether they are sufficient tomentioned as examples are indeed representative & whether they are sufficient tojustify the generalizationjustify the generalization

-- AA definitiondefinition may also connect a reason with a standpoint by way of a symptomaticmay also connect a reason with a standpoint by way of a symptomatic

relationshiprelationship


18/30


2. Argumentation based on a Relation of Analogy2. Argumentation based on a Relation of Analogy

A standpoint is defended by showing that something referred to in theA standpoint is defended by showing that something referred to in thestandpoint is similar to something that is cited in the argumentationstandpoint is similar to something that is cited in the argumentation on onthe grounds of this resemblance the standpoint should be accepted.the grounds of this resemblance the standpoint should be accepted.

The defense argues that what is true for one case is true for the other case as well:The defense argues that what is true for one case is true for the other case as well:

e.g., the case or circumstance mentioned in the argument is presented as an analogue, as ae.g., the case or circumstance mentioned in the argument is presented as an analogue, as amodel to be imitated, as an example to be avoidedmodel to be imitated, as an example to be avoided

(15) Its not at all necessary to give James 10 dollars allowance, because his brother always got(15) Its not at all necessary to give James 10 dollars allowance, because his brother always gotjust 5 dollars a week. (And both children should be treated in the same way.)just 5 dollars a week. (And both children should be treated in the same way.)

in order to argue plausibly that it is not necessary to give James a 10 dollar allowance, in order to argue plausibly that it is not necessary to give James a 10 dollar allowance,implicit reference is made to the comparability of the two brothers and to the equal rights ofimplicit reference is made to the comparability of the two brothers and to the equal rights ofthe two brothers with respect to the allowance in question.the two brothers with respect to the allowance in question.

> the explicitized unexpressed premise make sit clear that the relation between the> the explicitized unexpressed premise make sit clear that the relation between theargumentation and the standpoint is one of analogyargumentation and the standpoint is one of analogy


19/30


To assess the soundness of the argumentation inTo assess the soundness of the argumentation inexample (15), one has to determine whether theexample (15), one has to determine whether thecases being compared are really comparablecases being compared are really comparable IsIsthere no significant difference between the casesthere no significant difference between the cases

being compared which might invalidate thebeing compared which might invalidate thecomparison?comparison?

e.g., opinions about what is a reasonable allowance for ae.g., opinions about what is a reasonable allowance for achild may have changed over the course of time. If so, achild may have changed over the course of time. If so, adifferent comparison may be more appropriate (e.g., betweendifferent comparison may be more appropriate (e.g., betweenJames and the children of his age)James and the children of his age)


20/30


General argument scheme for the relation of analogy:General argument scheme for the relation of analogy:

Y is true of XY is true of XBecause: Y is true of ZBecause: Y is true of ZAnd: Z is comparable to XAnd: Z is comparable to X

Critical questions to ask:Critical questions to ask:

-- Are there significant differences between Z and X?Are there significant differences between Z and X?> such differences are pointed out by pointing out that Z has a> such differences are pointed out by pointing out that Z has a

certain characteristic that X does not have, or the other waycertain characteristic that X does not have, or the other way

roundround

(both forms of criticism are serious charges because basing(both forms of criticism are serious charges because basingargumentation on a relation of analogy assumes that X and Zargumentation on a relation of analogy assumes that X and Zshareshare all characteristicsall characteristics))


21/30


3. Argumentation based on a Causal Relation3. Argumentation based on a Causal Relation

A standpoint is defended by making a causal connection betweenA standpoint is defended by making a causal connection betweenthe argument and the standpoint, such that the standpoint, giventhe argument and the standpoint, such that the standpoint, giventhe argument, ought to be accepted on the grounds of thisthe argument, ought to be accepted on the grounds of thisconnectionconnection

E.g., presenting something as a cause of the effect that isE.g., presenting something as a cause of the effect that ismentioned in the standpoint, or as a means to an end, or as anmentioned in the standpoint, or as a means to an end, or as anaction with a certain effect (in this presentation it is suggestedaction with a certain effect (in this presentation it is suggestedthat one thing leads to another)that one thing leads to another)

(16

) Lydia must have weak eyes, because she is always reading in(

16) Lydia must ha

ve weak eyes, because she is always reading inpoor light. (And reading in poor light gives you weak eyes.)poor light. (And reading in poor light gives you weak eyes.)

reading in poor light is presented as the cause of the claimed circumstance that reading in poor light is presented as the cause of the claimed circumstance thatLydia has weak eyes: the explicitized unexpressed premise make clear that theLydia has weak eyes: the explicitized unexpressed premise make clear that therelation between the argumentation and the standpoint is a causal one.relation between the argumentation and the standpoint is a causal one.


22/30


Assessing the argumentation by analogyAssessing the argumentation by analogyin example (16):in example (16):

> verify whether the reading in poor light> verify whether the reading in poor lightalways results in weak eyesalways results in weak eyes

(perhaps the two things are not related, or(perhaps the two things are not related, orunder certain conditions the predictedunder certain conditions the predicted

result does not occur. Perhaps Lydiasresult does not occur. Perhaps Lydiaseyes are so strong that reading in pooreyes are so strong that reading in poorlight does not harm them at all)light does not harm them at all)


23/30


The Argument Scheme for a Causal Relation:The Argument Scheme for a Causal Relation:

Y is true of XY is true of X

Because: Z is true of XBecause: Z is true of XAnd: Z leads to YAnd: Z leads to Y

Critical questions to ask:Critical questions to ask:

-- Does Z always lead to Y?Does Z always lead to Y?


24/30


Causal argumentation can also be made in theCausal argumentation can also be made in thereverse order (similar to the argumentationreverse order (similar to the argumentationbased on a symptomatic relation): the argumentbased on a symptomatic relation): the argumentmentions the effect and the standpoint mentionsmentions the effect and the standpoint mentions

the cause:the cause:

(17) Lydia must have a lot of poor light because(17) Lydia must have a lot of poor light becauseshe has weak eyes.she has weak eyes.

a second critical question can be asked: Could the effect (i.e., a second critical question can be asked: Could the effect (i.e.,poor eyes) have been cause by something else (i.e., somethingpoor eyes) have been cause by something else (i.e., somethingother than reading in poor light)?other than reading in poor light)?


25/30


Pragmatic Argumentation =Pragmatic Argumentation = a subtype of causal argumentation in whicha subtype of causal argumentation in whichthe argument refers to an effect of what is mentioned in the standpointthe argument refers to an effect of what is mentioned in the standpoint

the standpoint recommends a certain course of action and thethe standpoint recommends a certain course of action and theargumentation consists of summing up the favorable consequences ofargumentation consists of summing up the favorable consequences ofadopting that course of action:adopting that course of action:

(18) Doctors should go back to wearing white jackets because this will create(18) Doctors should go back to wearing white jackets because this will createdistance (and it is a good thing to have a certain distance between thedistance (and it is a good thing to have a certain distance between thedoctor and the patient)doctor and the patient)

pragmatic argumentation may also be used to advise against a certainpragmatic argumentation may also be used to advise against a certaincourse of action:course of action:

(19) Doctors should stop wearing white jackets because this will create(19) Doctors should stop wearing white jackets because this will createdistance (and it is not a good thing to have distance between the doctordistance (and it is not a good thing to have distance between the doctorand the patient)and the patient)

-- When evaluating pragmatic arg., one has to determine whether theWhen evaluating pragmatic arg., one has to determine whether theconsequences mentioned in the argument are indeed favorable orconsequences mentioned in the argument are indeed favorable orunfavorable, as the case may be (in addition to answering the criticalunfavorable, as the case may be (in addition to answering the criticalquestions assigned to causal argumentation)questions assigned to causal argumentation)


26/30


1.5 The Presentation of Different Types of Argumentation1.5 The Presentation of Different Types of Argumentation

Before argumentation can be evaluated by asking the critical questionsBefore argumentation can be evaluated by asking the critical questionsthat are relevant for the argument scheme involved, the argumentationthat are relevant for the argument scheme involved, the argumentationmust be identified as a certain type of argumentationmust be identified as a certain type of argumentation certain certain indicatorsindicators might help:might help:

Symptomatic relation:Symptomatic relation:

(20) Steven is a real adolescent because he is terribly rebellious and(20) Steven is a real adolescent because he is terribly rebellious and

-- It is characteristic ofIt is characteristic ofadolescents that they are rebellious.adolescents that they are rebellious.

-- It is typical ofIt is typical ofadolescents that they are rebellious.adolescents that they are rebellious.

-- It is natural forIt is natural foradolescents that they are rebellious.adolescents that they are rebellious.

-- The wayThe way adolescentsadolescents are isare is that they are rebellious.that they are rebellious.-- Rebelliousness isRebelliousness is typical oftypical of adolescents.adolescents.

-- AdolescentsAdolescents areare rebelious.rebelious.


27/30


Analogy:Analogy:

(21) The movement towards democracy of the 1960s was bound to(21) The movement towards democracy of the 1960s was bound tofail because the French Revolution also failed andfail because the French Revolution also failed and

-- The movement towards democracy of the

1960

sThe movement towards democracy of the

1960

s is likeis like the Frenchthe FrenchRevolution.Revolution.-- The movement towards democracy of the 1960sThe movement towards democracy of the 1960s is comparable tois comparable to

the French Revolution.the French Revolution.-- The movement towards democracy of the 1960sThe movement towards democracy of the 1960s is similar tois similar to thethe

French Revolution.French Revolution.-- The movement towards democracy of the 1960sThe movement towards democracy of the 1960s corresponds tocorresponds to

the French Revolution.the French Revolution.-- The movement towards democracy of the 1960sThe movement towards democracy of the 1960s is related tois related to thethe

French Revolution.French Revolution.-- The movement towards democracy of the 1960sThe movement towards democracy of the 1960s is reminiscent ofis reminiscent of

the French Revolution.the French Revolution.


28/30


Causal Relation:Causal Relation:

(22) Harry must have been drunk because he drank(22) Harry must have been drunk because he drankthe whole bottle of whiskey andthe whole bottle of whiskey and

-- Drinking a whole bottle of whiskeyDrinking a whole bottle of whiskey has thehas theinevitable result thatinevitable result thatyou get drunk.you get drunk.

-- Drinking a whole bottle of whiskeyDrinking a whole bottle of whiskey leads toleads togetting drunk.getting drunk.

-- You alwaysYou always get drunk from drinking a wholeget drunk from drinking a wholebottle of whiskey.bottle of whiskey.

-- Drinking a whole bottle of whiskeyDrinking a whole bottle of whiskey cant help butcant help butmake youmake you drunk.drunk.


29/30

The Soundness of ArgumentationThe Soundness of Argumentation However, these indicators occur primarily in those parts of theHowever, these indicators occur primarily in those parts of the

argumentation that are often left unexpressedargumentation that are often left unexpressed

Fortunately, the explicit argument, too, often contains clues that mightFortunately, the explicit argument, too, often contains clues that mighthelp with the identification of the argumentation type.help with the identification of the argumentation type.

> symptomatic relation: either the argument or the standpoint might> symptomatic relation: either the argument or the standpoint mightcontain:contain: real, born, typical, a prime example of:real, born, typical, a prime example of:

(23) a. Louise can really hold peoples interest because she is a(23) a. Louise can really hold peoples interest because she is a bornborn teacher.teacher.b. This is not ab. This is not a realrealreport because it doesnt even have a bilbiography.report because it doesnt even have a bilbiography.c. Im already completely recovered because I am ac. Im already completely recovered because I am a typicaltypicalLeo.Leo.

> analogy:> analogy: also, either, any more thanalso, either, any more than (in the explicit argument) &(in the explicit argument) &thethesame, just likesame, just like (in the standpoint)(in the standpoint)

(24) a. It would be ridiculous if the telephone company made you pay for(24) a. It would be ridiculous if the telephone company made you pay fordialing adialing a

number that wasnt answered. I mean, you dont have to pay for anumber that wasnt answered. I mean, you dont have to pay for aticket to theticket to the

movies if they are sold outmovies if they are sold out either.either.b. You should hire theb. You should hire the samesame band as Eric had for his birthday partyband as Eric had for his birthday party

because it was abecause it was agreat success.great success.


30/30


> causal relation:> causal relation: then, otherwise, because of that, that leadsthen, otherwise, because of that, that leadsto & create, make, arise, catchto & create, make, arise, catch

(25) a. The sale ofvaluable works of art to anonymous buyers(25) a. The sale ofvaluable works of art to anonymous buyerswillwill make it difficult for museums to borrow art frommake it difficult for museums to borrow art from

privateprivate collections becausecollections because thenthen you wont be able toyou wont be able totrace the owners.trace the owners.b. Of course authors want to be paid well.b. Of course authors want to be paid well. OtherwiseOtherwise theythey

wouldntwouldnt be able to make a living from their writing.be able to make a living from their writing.c. We cant make public what is really going on becausec. We cant make public what is really going on because

it wouldit would lead to thelead to the embarrassment of certain highlyembarrassment of certain highlyplaced partyplaced party membersmembers

d. You shouldnt keep on pouting because itd. You shouldnt keep on pouting because it makesmakes memefeel guilty.feel guilty.

e. Fred may very well havee. Fred may very well have caughtcaughtcold because he hascold because he hasconstantlyconstantly been sitting in drafts.been sitting in drafts.

Documents

Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 6 (the Soundness of Argumentation)