David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 15 (2):173-189 (2001)
The nontechnical ability to identify or match argumentative structure seems to be an important reasoning skill. Instruments that have questions designed to measure this skill include major standardized tests for graduate school admission, for example, the United States-Canadian Law School Admission Test (LSAT), the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), and the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT). Writers and reviewers of such tests need an appropriate foundation for developing such questions--they need a proper representation of phenomenological argumentative structure--for legitimacy, and because these tests affect people's lives. This paper attempts to construct an adequate and appropriate representation of such structure, that is, the logical structure that an argument is perceived to have by mature reasoners, albeit ones who are untrained in logic.
|Keywords||argument structure fallacy logical form logical constants pattern of reasoning standardized tests material validity|
|Categories||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
Jacqueline M. Martinez (2008). Semiotic Phenomenology and the 'Dialectical Approach'to Intercultural Communication: Paradigm Crisis and the Actualities of Research Practice. Semiotica 2008 (169):135-153.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth Olson & Gilbert Plumer (2002). What Constitutes a Formal Analogy? In Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
John MacFarlane, Logical Constants. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jane Macoubrie (2003). Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making. Argumentation 17 (3):291-313.
David F. Foster (2011). Worldwide Testing and Test Security Issues: Ethical Challenges and Solutions. Ethics and Behavior 20 (3):207-228.
Stephen Spielman (1974). The Logic of Tests of Significance. Philosophy of Science 41 (3):211-226.
Tomis Kapitan (1982). On the Concept of Material Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):193-211.
Nancy Slonneger Hancock (2006). Logic for the LSAT. Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):125-155.
Gilbert Plumer (1999). Necessary Assumptions. Informal Logic 19 (1):41-61.
G. Randolph Mayes (2010). Argument-Explanation Complementarity and the Structure of Informal Reasoning. Informal Logic 30 (1):92-111.
David Socher (2007). A Little Roundup of Modus Tollens in the Flesh. Teaching Philosophy 30 (1):111.
M. Azar (1999). Argumentative Text as Rhetorical Structure: An Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (1):97-114.
Anthony Brueckner (1994). The Structure of the Skeptical Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):827-835.
Mary B. Williams (1976). The Logical Structure of Functional Explanations in Biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:37 - 46.
Jaroslav Peregrin (2010). The Myth of Semantic Structure. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Ontos Verlag. 1.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads130 ( #7,783 of 1,102,032 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #7,598 of 1,102,032 )
How can I increase my downloads?