Argumentation and Argumentative Structures

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
Locked
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/23

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering the definitions, types of arguments, logical structures, and fallacies found in the Argumenteren lecture notes.

Last updated 12:02 PM on 7/1/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai
Chat

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

24 Terms

1
New cards

Standpunt

A statement with which a writer or speaker expresses their opinion on a subject; synonyms include statement (stellingname), claim, or vision.

2
New cards

Argument

A reason used to support a point of view and make it acceptable to the audience.

3
New cards

Tegenargument

An argument used to refute or invalidate a standpoint or another argument, making it less acceptable.

4
New cards

Argumentatie

The combination of a point of view and the entire set of arguments (including counter-arguments) that support or refute it.

5
New cards

Feitelijke argumenten

Objective arguments that are verifiable, such as facts or results from scientific research.

6
New cards

Waarderende argumenten

Subjective arguments based on feelings, emotions, beliefs, norms, values, or personal opinions that cannot be verified as 'true' but only agreed or disagreed with.

7
New cards

Valide argument

A valid argument that is factually correct and of significance to the point of view being supported.

8
New cards

Argumentatieschema

A plan that indicates the nature of the logical connection between a standpoint and an argument.

9
New cards

Empirisch argument

An argument based on personal experience (ervaring).

10
New cards

Causaliteit

Argumentation based on cause and effect (oorzaak-gevolg), where the connection between the two must be plausible.

11
New cards

Analogie

Argumentation based on comparison, where situations or objects are compared based on similarities or differences.

12
New cards

Gezag of autoriteit

Supporting a point of view by appealing to an expert in a specific field or a reputable source, such as Van Dale.

13
New cards

Relevantie

A criterion for evaluating if an argument actually makes a standpoint more plausible.

14
New cards

Consistentie

Occurs when arguments logically relate to each other and do not contain internal contradictions.

15
New cards

Toereikendheid

When the provided arguments are sufficient to make the point of view acceptable to the audience.

16
New cards

Argumentatiestructuur

A schematic representation, such as a tree structure (boomstructuur), showing how arguments relate to each other and the standpoint.

17
New cards

Enkelvoudige argumentatie

An argumentation structure consisting of exactly one standpoint and one argument.

18
New cards

Meervoudige argumentatie

An argumentation structure where a single standpoint is supported by multiple arguments.

19
New cards

Onderschikkende argumentatie

Also known as chain argumentation (ketenargumentatie), where an argument is itself supported by one or more sub-arguments.

20
New cards

Nevenschikkende argumentatie

A structure where two or more arguments collectively support a standpoint; can be dependent (together they form a valid argument) or independent (each supports the standpoint on its own).

21
New cards

Drogredenen

Errors in reasoning that occur when an argumentation scheme is used incorrectly or discussion rules are violated; they weaken the validity of the argument.

22
New cards

Vals dilemma

A type of fallacy where it is suggested that one must choose between two options with equal disadvantages while ignoring other possibilities.

23
New cards

Professor dr. K. König

An emeritus professor of Preventive and Social Dentistry who argued against a ban on fluoride tablets.

24
New cards

Adrian F. Ward

A researcher mentioned in studies showing that people with high perceived control over information systematically overestimate their own cognitive skills.