Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical (goal-based) reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation schemes. Using two real examples, we show how applying the three types of schemes to a cluster of practical argumentation allows an argument analyst to reconstruct the tacit premises presupposed and evaluate the argumentative reasoning steps involved. This approach will be shown to overcome the limitations of the existing models of practical reasoning arguments within the BDI and commitment theoretical frameworks, providing a useful tool for discourse analysis and other disciplines. In particular, applying this method brings to light the crucial role of classification in practical argumentation, showing how the ordering of values and preferences is only one of the possible areas of deep disagreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Further, a man of a given disposition makes chiefly for the corresponding things: lovers of victory make for victory, lovers of honour for honour, money-loving men for money, and so with the rest. These, then, are the sources from which we must derive our means of persuasion about Good and Utility” (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1363b 1–5). “In the same way also it is in certain places honourable to sacrifice one's father, e.g. among the Triballi, whereas, absolutely, it is not honourable. Or possibly this may indicate a relativity not to places but to persons: for it is all the same wherever they may be: for everywhere it will be held honourable among the Triballi themselves, just because they are Triballi. Again, at certain times it is a good thing to take medicines, e.g. when one is ill, but it is not so absolutely” (Aristotle, Topics 115b 19–27).

  2. Putin and Obama Have Profound Differences on Syria. Editorial, The New York Times 28 September 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/putin-and-obama-have-profound-differences-on-syria.html on 20 November 2017. Fabrizio Macagno would like to thank his colleagues from the ArgLab for suggesting this interesting case, which was used for discussion in our of the permanent seminars.

References

  • Andriessen, Jerry, Michael Baker, and Dan Suthers, ed. 2003. Arguing to Learn. Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, St. Thomas (2003). On evil. ed. Richard Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Aristotle. 1991a. Nichomachean ethics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. 2, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Aristotle. 1991b. Topics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. 1, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Aristotle. 1991c. Rhetoric. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. 1, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171: 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, Robert. 2004. Reasons, practical reason, and practical reasoning. Ratio 17: 119–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, Robert. 2006. Practical reasoning and ethical decision. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, Trevor. 2003a. Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22: 231–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, Trevor. 2003b. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyssade, Claire, and Jean-Marie Marandin. 2009. Commitment: Une attitude dialogique. Langue française 162: 89–107. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.162.0089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlin, John. 1999. Contingency and fortune in Aquinas’s ethics, vol. 6. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael, David Israel, and Martha Pollack. 1988. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4: 349–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockriede, Wayne, and Douglas Ehninger. 1963. Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brun, Georg, and Gregor Betz. 2016. Analysing practical argumentation. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis, ed. Sven Ove Hansson, and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, 39–77. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, Dennis, and James Druckman. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D.S. 1979. Varieties of practical inference. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 17: 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, James. 2002. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior 23: 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015006907312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John. 2012. Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. Jon Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, Pascal (ed.). 2000. Believing and accepting. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 7: 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, Isabella, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felton, Mark, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Sandra Gilabert. 2009. Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic 29: 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, Alan. 2007. From beliefs to arguments: Interpretive methodology and rhetorical political analysis. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9: 545–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Mila, Merce, Sandra Gilabert, Sibel Erduran, and Mark Felton. 2013. The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education 97: 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart. 1999. Presuppositions and pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart. 2017. Presupposition and givenness. In Oxford handbook of pragmatics, ed. Yan Huang, 180–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Tsafrir, and Baruch Schwarz. 2016. Harnessing emotions to deliberative argumentation in classroom discussions on historical issues in multi-cultural contexts. Frontline Learning Research 4: 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney. 2003. Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ed. Giovanni Sartor, 22–31. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grennan, Wayne. 1997. Informal logic. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37: 130–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, David. 2017. On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and on critical thinking. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, Christian. 2003. Multidimensionality and non-deductiveness in deliberative argumentation. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. Frans Van Eemeren, Anthony Blair, Charles Willard, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 157–171. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, Christian. 2007a. Dialectical obligations in political debate. Informal Logic 27: 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, Christian. 2007b. Is practical reasoning presumptive? Informal Logic 27: 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Deanna, Laura Hemberger, and Valerie Khait. 2014. Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. New York: Wessex Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, George. 2010. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 4: 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, Elina, and Elin Naurin. 2017. Election pledge rhetoric: Selling policy with words. International Journal of Communication 11: 2198–2219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 117: 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2008a. Persuasive definitions: Values, meanings and implicit disagreements. Informal Logic 28: 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2008b. The argumentative structure of persuasive definitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11: 525–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-008-9119-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2015. Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy and Rhetoric 48: 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2015.0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting straw man argumentation. The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus, and Deanna Kuhn. 2015. Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies. Topoi 34: 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9271-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, James. 1991. How decisions happen in organizations. Human-Computer Interaction 6: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayweg-Paus, Elisabeth, Fabrizio Macagno, and Deanna Kuhn. 2016. Developing argumentation strategies in electronic dialogs: Is modeling effective? Discourse Processes 53: 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millgram, Elijah. 2001. Practical reasoning: The current state of play. In Varieties of practical reasoning, ed. Elijah Millgram, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir, Star. 1993. A defense of the ethics of contemporary debate. Philosophy & Rhetoric 26: 277–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess, Arne. 1966. Communication and argument. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Thomas E., and Zoe M. Oxley. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics 61: 1040–1067. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmos, Paula. 2016. Meta-argumentation in deliberative discourse: Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21. In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016, ed. Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista, 1–17. Windsor, ON: Scholarship at UWindsor.

  • Paglieri, Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi. 2005. Arguments as belief structures: Towards a Toulmin layout of doxastic dynamics? In The uses of argument proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. David Hitchcock, 356–367. Hamlilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm. 1968. Le raisonnement pratique. In Contemporary philosophy—A survey, ed. Raymond Klibansky, 168–176. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1951. Act and person in argument. Ethics 61: 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, Chrysi, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research 79: 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, Chrysi, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Sandra Gilabert. 2013. What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research 83: 483–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, Joseph (ed.). 1978. Practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, Joseph. 2011. From normativity to responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Henry S. 1997. Practical reasoning about final ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, Michael. 1984a. Practical reasoning, commitment, and rational action. American Philosophical Quarterly 21: 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, Michael. 1984b. Promising, intending and moral autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 1995. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining reality. Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward. 1998. Constructing reality through definitions: The politics of meaning. A lecture presented for the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing and the Composition, Literacy, and Rhetorical Studies Minor. Speakers series 11.

  • Schwarz, Baruch, and Michael Baker. 2016. Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 2005. Desire, deliberation and action. In Logic, thought and action, ed. Daniel Vanderveken, 49–78. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Segerberg, Krister. 1984. A topological logic of action. Studia Logica 43: 415–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, Paul M., and Sean M. Theriault. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, ed. Willem Saris and Paul Sniderman, 133–165. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705810254.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoutland, Frederick. 2010. Von Wright. In A companion to the philosophy of action, ed. Timothy O’Connor and Constantine Sandis, 589–597. Malden: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, Larry. 2012. Rethinking the good: Moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Weide, Thomas, Frank Dignum, John-Jules Meyer, Henry Prakken, and Gerard Vreeswijk. 2009. Practical reasoning using values: Giving meaning to values. In Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ed. Peter McBurney, Iyad Rahwan, Simon Parsons, and Nicolas Maudet, 79–93. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans. 2015. The pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation. In Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse: Fifty contributions to the development of Pragma-dialectics, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 521–542. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, Georg. 1963. The varieties of goodness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, Georg. 1972. On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica 15: 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937201500104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1990. Practical reasoning. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1992. Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2008. The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6: 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2015. Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316340554.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2009. Reasoning from classifications and definitions. Argumentation 23: 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9110-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2010. Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions. Informal Logic 30 (1): 34–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2015a. Importance and trickiness of definition strategies in legal and political argumentation. Journal of Politics and Law 8: 137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2015b. A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument and Computation 6: 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic 36: 523. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed. 2005. Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145: 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6198-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Timothy J. Norman. 2016. Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument & Computation 7: 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westberg, Daniel. 2002. Right practical reason: Aristotle, action, and prudence in Aquinas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, Michael. 2009. An introduction to multiagent systems. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti, Eddo. 2008. Locus a causa finali. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria 2: 559–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, Claudia, Sibel Erduran, Jonathan Osborne, and Shirley Simon. 2008. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Albert Jaeger for the problems he raised concerning the application of the schemes, which led to this paper. Fabrizio Macagno would like to thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for the research grants no. IF/00945/2013, PTDC/IVC-HFC/1817/2014, and PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014 Douglas Walton would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for Insight Grant 435-2012-0104.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ArgLab, IFILNOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Edifício I&D - 4 andar, Avenida de Berna 26, 1069-061, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

  2. Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric (CRRAR), University of Windsor, 401 Sunset, Windsor, ON, N9B 2W3, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macagno, F., Walton, D. Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach. Argumentation 32, 519–547 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation