Argumentation Exam 1

Argumentation

The process/activity of making and evaluating arguments.

Argument

A claim supported by reasons or evidence.

3 pre-conditions for argument

Willingness to hear each other out, agreement upon criteria for judging validity (or good vs bad arguments), and agreement to reflect on the weakness of one’s own position

4 aspects of argument

bilateral lines of influence, no fiat (because I said its true that means its true), varied levels of success, risk failure

4 limitations of argument

indecisive or uncertain, mutually exclusive alternatives, verbal only, and means not ends

3 uses/value of argument

more reliable/humane than alternatives, self regulating, and person-making and person-risking

Brockriede's 3 dimensions of argument

belongs to the realm of the problematic, a function based on variable logic not categorical logic, and based on human perceptions and choices.

Brockriede's 6 characteristics of argument

an inferential leap, a perceived rationale for that leap, a choice among 2+ competing claims, a regulation of uncertainty, a willingness to risk confrontation, and a frame of reference shared optimally

Argument₁ vs. Argument₂ (O'Keefe)

Argument₁: overt expression of a claim and reasons

Argument₂: interaction characterized by extended, overt disagreement over claims and reasons

You can have A₁ without A₂, but not A₂ without A₁

Narrative paradigm

A theory/framework that views human communication through the concept of storytelling and narratives.

Narrative fidelity

Whether a narrative seems to ring true or fit with the audience's experiences and values.

Narrative probability

Whether a narrative is coherent and internally consistent.

4 types of reasoning

inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, analogical reasoning and causal reasoning

Argument by example

An argument that uses examples as grounds/evidence for a claim.

4 tests of examples

sufficient number of examples? typical examples? negative examples accounted for? examples relevant to the claim?

Argument by analogy

An argument that uses similarities between things to support a conclusion.

4 tests of analogies

How similar are the cases? Similar in meaningful ways? Similarity relative to argument? Characteristics accurately described?

Argument from sign

An argument that uses one thing as an indicator or sign of another.

Argument from causal correlation

An argument concerning a relationship/correlation between events or variables and causation.

Argument from causal generalization

An argument that generalizes a causal relationship beyond the specific cases observed.

Associational method of causation

Observed cause X and effect Y together, associate X and Y

Canon of causation

If X, then Y; if no X then no Y = causal relationship

Canon of correlation

The more X is present, the more Y is present = positive correlation

Connectional method of causation

What is the connection between the cause and effect? What inherent property of X causes Y?

Categorical syllogism

A syllogism involving categories or classes.

Conditional syllogism

A syllogism involving conditional if/then statements.

Disjunctive syllogism

A syllogism involving alternatives or either/or statements.

Validity vs. truth of syllogisms

Validity concerns whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises; truth concerns whether the statements correspond to reality.

Using Venn diagrams to show validity of enthymemes/syllogisms

Venn diagrams can be used to test whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises of a categorical argument.

Enthymeme

A shortened or incomplete argument in which part of the reasoning is left unstated.

Enthymeme vs. syllogism

An enthymeme leaves part of the argument unstated; a syllogism presents its components explicitly.

4 types of grounds of arguments

Premises, examples, statistics, testimony

Descriptive statistics

Statistics that describe or summarize collected data.

Inferential statistics

Statistics used to draw conclusions or generalizations from data.

Descriptive vs. inferential statistics

Descriptive statistics summarize data; inferential statistics use data to draw conclusions beyond the observed data.

Descriptive testimony

Testimony that provides information about what happened or what someone observed.

Interpretive testimony

Testimony that provides an interpretation or assessment of information.

Descriptive vs. interpretive testimony

Descriptive testimony reports information; interpretive testimony explains or interprets information.

Testing grounds of argument

Evaluating whether the evidence or support for an argument is adequate, relevant, credible, and supportive of the claim.

Proposition of fact

A proposition concerning whether something is or was true.

Proposition of value

A proposition making a judgment about value, quality, desirability, or morality.

Proposition of policy

A proposition arguing that something should or should not be done.

Need

A problem or condition that requires attention in a policy argument.

Plan

The proposed action or solution for addressing a problem.

Practicality

Whether a proposed plan can realistically be implemented or work.

Stasis

The point or issue of disagreement that identifies what an argument is actually about.

Hermagoras' 4 levels of stasis

Level of fact (conjecture), Level of definition, Level of quality (value), and Level of policy (jurisdiction/action)

Presumption

An assumption accepted as true unless challenged or disproven.

Burden of proof

The responsibility to provide evidence supporting a claim.

Burden of rejoinder

The responsibility to respond to an opposing argument.

Status quo

The existing or current state of affairs.

4 stock issues / prima facie requirements

The four stock issues are ill, blame, cure, and cost/disadvantage.

Ill

A stock issue concerning the problem or harm that exists.

Blame

A stock issue concerning responsibility for the problem.

Cure

A stock issue concerning the proposed solution to the problem.

Cost / disadvantage

A stock issue concerning the costs or disadvantages of a proposed solution.

Steps of presenting a refutation

1. Signal: Identify the specific claim you are answering

2. State: Make your counter claim

3. Support: Provide your evidence, facts, or logical reasoning that supports your claim

4. Summarize: Conclude by explaining the comparative importance or impact of your argument

Ambiguity

Language or a statement that can have more than one possible meaning.

Equivocation

Using a word or phrase in different senses within an argument.

Appeal to fear

A fallacy that uses fear to persuade rather than relevant reasoning or evidence.

Appeal to pity

A fallacy that uses sympathy or pity to persuade rather than relevant reasoning or evidence.

Fallacy of composition

Assuming that what is true of individual parts must also be true of the whole.

Hasty generalization

Making a broad conclusion from too little or unrepresentative evidence.

Fallacy of division

Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of each individual part.

Fallacy of extension

Misrepresenting or extending an opponent's position in order to make it easier to attack.

Fallacy of false consolation

Using the fact that something could be worse to make a problem seem acceptable or insignificant.

False dilemma fallacy

Presenting only two choices when more alternatives actually exist.

De facto reasoning fallacy

Treating the fact that something exists or occurs as evidence that it should exist or occur.

Begging the question

A fallacy in which the argument assumes the conclusion it is supposed to prove.

Ad hominem

A fallacy that attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument.

Ad populum

A fallacy that appeals to popularity as evidence that something is true or correct.

Tu quoque

A fallacy that responds to criticism by accusing the critic of doing the same thing.

Ad novarrum

An appeal to something because it is new, assuming that newness makes it better or more correct.

Ad verecundiam

An inappropriate appeal to authority as evidence.

Red herring

A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to distract from the actual argument.

Non sequitur

A conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises or preceding information.

Post hoc

A fallacy that assumes that because one event happened after another, the first event caused the second.

Straw person

A fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument into a weaker or distorted version and attacks that version.

Slippery slope

A fallacy that assumes one action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly undesirable consequences without sufficient support.

Indignant language

A fallacy involving emotionally charged, insulting, or inflammatory language instead of relevant reasoning.

Toulmin model

NOT ON THIS EXAM.