Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?

Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416 (2012)

Abstract
Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated to violate argument type specific criteria. Participants proved sensitive to the violation of most, but not all, argument type specific criteria. From a normative perspective these findings suggest that people act in a fairly adequate way. These findings also enable a more precise description of what people may do when critically appraising arguments, which has important implications for the use of argument quality as a methodological tool in persuasion research
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13546783.2012.669986
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,914
External links

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

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Regress Argument Reconstruction.Jan Willem Wieland - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Argument Quality and Cultural Difference.Siegel Harvey - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.
The Use of Philosophical Arguments in Quantum Physics.John Losee - 1964 - Philosophy of Science 31 (1):10-17.
‘Everyone’, Consequences, and Generalization Arguments.J. Howard Sobel - 1967 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 10 (1-4):373-404.
Epistemology, Argumentation, and Citizenship.Richard Feldman - 1999 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 3:89-105.
Genetically Based Handicap.Alan Holland - 1998 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):119–132.
One-Sided Arguments.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2007 - Synthese 154 (2):307-327.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-06-13

Total views
29 ( #297,178 of 2,266,376 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #849,232 of 2,266,376 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature