7 found
Order:
  1.  36
    E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator.Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):485-496.
    This contribution offers an evaluation of e contrario reasoning in which the interpretation of a legal rule is based on the context of the law system . A model is presented which will show all the explicit and implicit elements of the argument at work and will also point out how these distinct parts are interrelated. By questioning the content and justificatory power of these elements, the weak spots in the argument can be laid bare. It will be argued that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  32
    Refuting a Standpoint by Appealing to Its Outcomes: Reductio Ad Absurdum Vs. Argument From Consequences.Henrike Jansen - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):249-266.
    Used informally, the Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) consists in reasoning appealing to the logically implied, absurd consequences of a hypothetical proposition, in order to refute it. This kind of reasoning resembles the Argument from Consequences, which appeals to causally induced consequences. These types of argument are sometimes confused, since it is not worked out how these different kinds of consequences should be distinguished. In this article it is argued that the logical consequences in RAA-argumentation can take different appearances and that (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  10
    Review of van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen, Eds. Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW]Henrike Jansen - 2017 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (1):97-100.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  20
    In View of an Express Regulation: Considering the Scope and Soundness of a Contrario Reasoning.Henrike Jansen - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):44-59.
    A contrario reasoning (or ‘a contrario argument’ or ‘argument a contrario’) is traditionally understood as an appeal to the deliberate silence of the legislator: because a legal rule does not mention case X specifically, the rule is not applicable to it. Modern perspectives on legal reasoning often apply this label to a broader concept of reasoning, namely the reasoning by which a legal rule is not applied because of the differences between the case at hand and the one(s) mentioned in (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  6
    “You Think That Says a Lot, but Really It Says Nothing”: An Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression Functioning as a Presentational Device.Henrike Jansen - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):615-640.
    This paper discusses idiomatic expressions like ‘that says it all’, ‘that says a lot’ etc. when used in presenting an argument. These expressions are instantiations of the grammatical pattern that says Q, in which Q is an indefinite quantifying expression. By making use of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and the linguistic theory of construction grammar it is argued that instantiations of that says Q expressing positive polarity can fulfil the role of an argumentation’s linking premise. Furthermore, an analysis of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  16
    Book Review: Walton, Douglas (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press. ISBN 0271021772, 374 Pp. [REVIEW]Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):513-518.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  9
    David Zarefsky . Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky.Henrike Jansen - 2015 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (3):331-335.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark