David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 15 (4):397-423 (2001)
Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses
|Keywords||Linked, convergent argument structure multiple, co-ordinatively compound argumentation logical, dialectical analysis conclusive relevance inference rule|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Gregor Betz (2008). Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods. Synthese 163 (1):25 - 44.
Jeffrey Yoshimi (2004). Mapping the Structure of Debate. Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22.
Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari (2007). Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. [REVIEW] Logica Universalis 1 (1):93-124.
Gilbert Plumer (2001). Phenomenological Argumentative Structure. Argumentation 15 (2):173-189.
Nancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
Roosmaryn Pilgram (2012). Reasonableness of a Doctor’s Argument by Authority: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Specific Soundness Conditions. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):33-50.
Henry Prakken (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
Jane Macoubrie (2003). Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making. Argumentation 17 (3):291-313.
A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2003). Complex Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Argumentation 17 (4):405-419.
R. McBride (1999). Consciousness and the State/Transitive/Creature Distinction. Philosophical Psychology 12 (2):181-196.
Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
Gregor Betz (2005). The Vicious Circle Theorem – a Graph-Theoretical Analysis of Dialectical Structures. Argumentation 19 (1):53-64.
Qingyin Liang & Yun Xie (2011). How Critical is the Dialectical Tier? Argumentation 25 (2):229-242.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads17 ( #91,421 of 1,096,179 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #56,841 of 1,096,179 )
How can I increase my downloads?