Year:

  1. Critical Review of Arguing With People by Michael Gilbert.J. Anthony Blair - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):70-84.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  2
    Argument or Explanation: Who is to Decide?Dufour Michel - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):23-41.
    Granting that arguments and explanations that answer a why-question are the products of two species of the activity of reason-giving, do they make an exclusive and exhaustive classification? The orthodox distinction between argument and explanation already faces some tough cases, which are discussed. This paper shows that most of the criteria used to distinguish argument and explanation on the basis of the status of their conclusions cause tough cases to proliferate unless a debatable decision is made. This suggests that the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Announcement.From the Editors - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):1.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. The Role of Quasi-Logical Arguments in Critical Dialogue: A Pragma-Dialectical Redefinition.Iva Svačinová - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):42-69.
    The article focuses on the New Rhetoric’s concept of quasi-logical arguments imitating logical or mathematical demonstrations, and examines it from point of view of pragma-dialectics as a device contributing towards resolving the difference of opinion. It is shown that the category of quasi-logical arguments cannot be considered as an argument scheme or a united type of strategic maneuvering. It is suggested to consider the category of quasi-logical arguments as a cluster of specific strategic maneuvers increasing the efficiency of arguments under (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Conductive Argument as a Mode of Strategic Maneuvering.Yun Xie - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):2-22.
    This paper is to argue that conductive arguments could be understood from a rhetorical perspective. It contends that conductive arguments can be regarded as a particular mode of strategic maneuvering, rather than a new type of argument. Moreover, it demonstrates that the use of conductive arguments can be adequately analyzed and evaluated by adopting the theoretical tools developed in the extended Pragma-Dialectics.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues