Argumentation Notes Flashcards

Question

How do you identify an argument being used?

Answer 1

1. Identify the standpoint - can often be unusual or controversial 2. Determine via utterances what the argument is

Answer 2

1. Explicit - "my argument is" etc. 2. Indicators of arguments (and standpoints) - "therefore, this, so, consequently, because" etc. Conclusionary statements are also included such as all in all.

Answer 3

1. Retrogressive - the standpoint is given before the argument (Carla doesn’t ever want to see Bob again, because she won’t call him.) 2. Progressive - the argument is given before the standpoint (often indicated by thus/therefore etc.) (Carla doesn’t ever want to see Bob again, so she won’t call him.) These are often determined via context and background info

Answer 4

Where an an utterance is made that is hard to interpret can be helpful, in coming to the right interpretation, by providing information about what exactly was happening when the utterance occurred

Answer 5

Where the problematic utterance that was made can be helpful in interpreting problematic utterances in argumentative discourse by specifying the conventional layout of the type of discourse concerned, so that it may become clear which interpretation would be appropriate.

Answer 6

A source that can be helpful in solving problems in interpreting argumentative discourse by providing information from other exchanges or documents dealing with the same or similar issues that may clarify what is meant in the present one.

Answer 7

Information that is, in principle, available to all members of a communicative community.

Answer 8

Information that is only available to some (experts, members of a culture etc.)

Answer 9

A pitfall. EEC is often used to bring a comment that is "already accepted." However, they can still be considered arguments even if it may not seem so, they even use such terms like "because."

Answer 10

Interpreting any problematic utterance as argumentation. This prevents utterances that are important to a resolution of a difference of opinion are not overlooked.

Answer 11

When omitted elements are implicitly present in the argumentation. Sometimes even standpoints or premises can be unexpressed.

Answer 12

When a speaker or writer says what they mean in a roundabout way rather than a direct way. Often to convey more than they literally say and indicate to the listener about their indirectness.

Answer 13

According to this principle, people who are communicating with each other generally try to make their contributions to the communication fit in as much as possible with the purpose of their communication. To do so, they must observe certain general rules for communication.

Answer 14

1. Be clear - whatever is said or written should be as easy to understand as possible. 2. Be sincere - it must not be insincere. 3. Be efficient - it should not be redundant or pointless. 4. Keep to the point - it must appropriately connect with what has gone before.

Answer 15

By violating one of the rules while not abandoning the communication principle, people make indirectness clear to others and show how they mean something difference or more than what they are saying

Answer 16

1. Preparatory conditions - what the speaker or writer must do in order to follow the efficiency rule. 2. Sincerity conditions - what the speaker or writer must believe in order to follow the sincerity rule

Answer 17

This rule means that the arguer’s attempt to convince someone of a standpoint should not be redundant or pointless. The arguer must believe that the addressee: does not already accept the standpoint, will accept the statements used in the argumentation and will view the argumentation as an acceptable defense of the proposition to which the standpoint refers

Answer 18

The sincerity conditions that must be met for argumentation state that the arguer believes that: the standpoint is acceptable, the statements used in the argumentation are acceptable and the argumentation is an acceptable defense (or refutation) of the proposition to which the standpoint refers.

Answer 19

Analyse if the violation is due to a reason or has meaning. This is often misused to get people to "fill in" for violations for a specific purpose like "indirectness"

Answer 20

1. Clarity - On the grounds of this rule the listeners or readers can assume that it will be possible for them to figure out the intended meaning. Therefore, something vague can be assumed to be something else (like "sometime" being a refusal to a hangout) 2. Sincerity - On the grounds of this rule the listener or reader can assume that the speaker or writer means what is said. By saying something insincere, the speaker can convey the opposite. 3. Efficiency - On the grounds of this rule, listeners or readers can assume that whatever a speaker or writer says is not flawed in these respects. 4. Keeping to the point - On the grounds of this rule listeners or readers can assume that this is the case. This violation to what has just been said can be used to convey that the speaker refuses to discuss the topic

Answer 21

You can use logic and figure it out through their reasoning. If you can form a conclusion from reasoning, that is the standpoint. Then use context and background communication accordance with communication rules to determine the standpoint.

Answer 22

The rule of logic which states that if a conditional statement (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred

Answer 23

1. If p, then q (If Claus comes from Tyrol, then he likes to yodel) 2. p (Clause comes from Tyrol) Therefore, 3. q (Claus likes to yodel) * However, since this is a repetition, this violates efficiency rule so there must be another statement (Tyrolers likes to yodel (because we cant quanitfy from an unexpressed statement)) if we want to consider it valid.

Answer 24

Because we might implement pre conceived notions, we have to presume that the argument takes place in a context that is not well-defined. However, not if it would be unfair to the arguer so dont presume a violation of communication rules without checking for other specific reasons.

Answer 25

Please see examples given in the textbook

Answer 26

When one premise is not sufficient to explain a conclusion, it can be assumed for two premises which are therefore coordinative. In multiple, if one argument is undermined while the others stand which is not the same for coordinative.

Answer 27

If it is an argumentation structure is too ambiguous to be multiple or coordinative, it is best to pick multiple.

Answer 28

1. Which stages of critical discussion are present. 2. The nature of the difference of opinion (standpoints, parties, type of dispute). 3. The arguments and unexpressed premises for each standpoint. 4. The argumentation structure. 5. The final positions of each party and whether the difference was resolved.

Answer 29

1. The whole argumentation may be inconsistent or flawed 2. Individual arguments might be weak, unacceptable or ill-constructed Depending on argument structure, 2 might make 1 (like with subordinate or coordinative structures).

Answer 30

1. Logical inconsistency: When two statements directly contradict each other and cannot both be true. 2. Pragmatic inconsistency: When two statements don’t contradict logically but clash in practice or real-world consequences.

Answer 31

1. Acceptability – Are the statements (premises and conclusion) reasonable and credible? 2. Validity – Does the reasoning logically connect the premises to the conclusion? 3. Appropriateness of the argument scheme – Is the argument pattern (e.g., cause-effect, analogy, authority) suitable and applied correctly?

Answer 32

1. They can be easily acceptable - Their truth can be checked and is easy to verify. However, there are nonfactual but commonplace statements (i.e. values/judgements people share) 2. They can be hard to accept - complex or controversial claims tied to deep values, norms, or disputed issues are much harder to agree on. If they arent supported with further argumentation, they weaken the whole defense.

Answer 33

The rule of logic which states that if a conditional statement (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q ) then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p ) can be inferred. i.e. 1. If p, then q 2. Not q Therefore, 3. Not p

Answer 34

An argument is only considered sound if valid, where the conslusion follows from the premises. If reasoning is logically invalid, the argument fails. However, incomplete reasoning can be reconstructed to make it logically valid. Valid reasoning therefore follows logical forms like modus ponens and tollens. Directly invalid logic though, can not be saved (like a fallacy).

Answer 35

The typical way an argument connects a reason to a standpoint. Unlike bare logical forms (“If A, then B”), argument schemes bring in background assumptions about how the world works.

Answer 36

1. Symptomatic argumentation (sign-based): The reason points to a sign or symptom of what is claimed. In this type of argument, a standpoint is defended by pointing to a sign, symptom, or characteristic that is said to be typical of what the standpoint claims. 2. Analogical argumentation (comparison-based): The reason draws a parallel between two cases. 3. Causal argumentation (cause–effect): The reason suggests a cause–effect relationship.

Answer 37

1. Symptomatic arguments: Is the alleged sign really a reliable indicator? followed by: Arent there any Ys that dont have Z? Arent there any non-Ys that do have Z? 2. Analogical arguments: Are the two cases really comparable in the relevant respects? Does Z have a trait that X lacks? Does X have a trait that Z lacks? 3. Causal arguments: Is the cause really responsible for the effect, or could other factors explain it? Are there cases where Z does not lead to Y? Could Y have been caused by something other than Z?

Answer 38

1. Standpoint (Y is true of X): Jack is an experienced teacher. 2. Argument (Z is true of X): Jack spends little time on prep. 3. Unexpressed premise (Z is symptomatic of Y): Little prep time is a sign of experience.

Answer 39

1. Standpoint (Y is true of X): James doesn’t need $10 allowance. 2. Argument (Y is true of Z): His brother got $5. 3. Unexpressed premise (Z is comparable to X): Brothers should be treated alike in allowance.

Answer 40

1. Direct analogue: one case is compared to another (brothers, classmates, countries). 2. Model to imitate: “We should adopt Finland’s education policy, since it works well there.” 3. Negative example: “Don’t invest recklessly; look what happened in 2008.”

Answer 41

1. A literal analogy: comparing two directly similar cases (brothers’ allowances). 2. A figurative analogy: comparing across very different domains, often to illustrate or persuade.

Answer 42

1. Standpoint (Y is true of X): Lydia has weak eyes. 2. Argument (Z is true of X): Lydia reads in poor light. 3. Unexpressed premise (Z leads to Y): Reading in poor light leads to weak eyes.

Answer 43

1. Cause → effect: “Reading in poor light causes weak eyes.” 2. Means → end: “Exercising regularly leads to better health.” 3. Action → consequence: “Raising taxes will reduce consumption.” 4. Effect → cause: “Lydia must have read in poor light, because she has weak eyes.”

Answer 44

1. Trait of a person as a sign of character 2. Phenomenon as a sign of something broader 3. Argument by example (generalization) 4. Argument by definition

Answer 45

This is a practical version of causal reasoning where the standpoint recommends or rejects an action and the reason points to the consequences of taking that action. Like “Doctors should wear white jackets, because it creates distance (and distance is good).”

Argumentation Notes Flashcards

(70 cards)