Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore. [2]: 19 More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex abductive argumentation scheme may also apply.
The schemes connect arguments together into sequences, often called chaining, by taking the conclusion of one argument as a premise in a subsequent argument. Some common schemes are argument from goal-based reasoning, argument from negative consequences, argument from positive consequences, inference to the best explanation (abductive reasoning ...
In order to evaluate these forms, statements are put into logical form. Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its subject matter. [1] Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because ...
Argument from values is combined with practical reasoning in the type of argumentation called value-based practical reasoning. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] The following argumentation scheme for value-based practical reasoning is given in Atkinson, Bench-Capon & McBurney (2005 , pp. 2–3).
Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. [3] It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. [2]
In informal logic this is called a counter argument. The form of an argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. A statement form which is logically ...
The argument map tree schema of Kialo with an example path through it: all Con-argument boxes and some Pros were emptied to illustrate an example path. [32] A partial argument tree with claims and impact votes for arguments illustrates one form of collective determination of argument weights that is based on equal-weight user voting. [33]
Araucaria is an argument mapping software tool developed in 2001 by Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe, in the Argumentation Research Group at the School of Computing in the University of Dundee, Scotland. It is designed to visually represent arguments through diagrams that can be used for analysis and stored in Argument Markup Language (AML), based on XML.