Informal Logic 21 (2) (2001)

A popular three-stage argument appraisal strategy calls for (1) identifying the parts of the argument, (2) classifYing the argument as deductive, inductive, or some other type, and (3) appraising the argument using the standards appropriate for the type. This strategy fails for a number of reasons. I propose a comprehensive alternative approach that distinguishes between inductive, deductive, and other standards; calls for the successive application of standards combined with assumption-ascription, according to policies that depend for their selection on the goals of the appraiser; and provides for qualified reasoning
Keywords critical thinking, argument, argument appraisal, induction, deduction, qualified reasoning, value judging, assumptions, ceteris paribus, prima facie, probably
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 55,955
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Warrant and Proper Function.Alvin Plantinga - 1993 - Oxford University Press.
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge University Press.
Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 1975 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 47.

View all 37 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.D. Walton & C. A. Reed - 2005 - Synthese 145 (3):339-370.
Appeals to Considerations.David Hitchcock - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):195-237.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
34 ( #299,261 of 2,403,169 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #552,147 of 2,403,169 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes