Argumentation

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 347–371 | Cite as

Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme

Article

Abstract

Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, an argument’s assumptions can be evaluated as defeated, e.g., when there is a defeating reason against the assumption. The present work builds on recent research on defeasible argumentation (cf. e.g. the work of Pollock, Reiter, Loui, Vreeswijk, Prakken, Hage and Dung). More specifically, the author’s work on the dialectical logic DEFLOG and the argumentation tool ARGUMED serve as starting points.

Keywords

argument evaluation defeasible argumentation Stephen E. Toulmin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. 1962How to Do Things with WordsHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1997‘Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law’Artificial Intelligence and Law5249261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesñevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G., Loui, R. P. 2000‘Logical Models of Argument’ACM Computing Surveys32337383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dung, P. M. 1995‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games’Artificial Intelligence77321357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ennis, R. H. 1982‘Identifying Implicit Assumptions’Synthese516186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gabbay, D. M.Hogger, C. J.Robinson, J. A. eds. 1994Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Volume 3. Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain ReasoningClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Girle, R., Hitchcock, D. L., McBurney, P., Verheij, B. 2003

    Decision Support for Practical Reasoning: A Theoretical and Computational Perspective

    Reed, C.Norman, T. J. eds. Argumentation Machines. New Frontiers in Argument and ComputationKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht5584
    Google Scholar
  8. Haack, S. 1978Philosophy of LogicsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Hage, J. C. 1997Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying LogicKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Hage, J. C. 2000‘Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law’Artificial Intelligence and Law8137172Google Scholar
  11. Hitchcock, D. L. 1985‘Enthymematic Arguments’Informal Logic78397Google Scholar
  12. Hitchcock, D. L. 1998‘Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?’Argumentation121537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstadter, D. 1980Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden BraidVintage BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Loui, R. P. 1998‘Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning’Computational Intelligence14138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McBurney, P. and S. Parsons: 2000, ‘Tenacious Tortoises: A Formalism for Argument over Rules of Inference’, Computational Dialectics (ECAI 2000 Workshop), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Pollock, J. L. 1987‘Defeasible Reasoning’Cognitive Science11481518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prakken, H. 1997Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in LawKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Prakken, H. G., Vreeswijk, A. W. 2002

    ‘Logics for Defeasible Argumentation’

    Gabbay, D. M.Guenthner, F. eds. Handbook of Philosophical Logic2Kluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht218319
    Google Scholar
  19. Reed, C.Norman, T. J. eds. 2003Argumentation Machines. New Frontiers in Argument and ComputationKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Reiter, R. 1980‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’Artificial Intelligence1381132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Searle, J. R. 1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of LanguageCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. E. 1958The Uses of ArgumentCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., Janik, A. 1984An Introduction to Reasoning2MacmillanNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Toulmin, S. E. 2001Return to ReasonHarvard University PressCambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S. 1996Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary DevelopmentsLawrence Erlbaum Associates MahwahNJGoogle Scholar
  26. Verheij, B.: 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Dissertation Universiteit, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  27. Verheij, B. 1999

    Logic, Context and Valid Inference. Or: Can There Be a Logic of Law?

    Herik, H. J.Moens, M.-F.Bing, J.Buggenhout, B.Zeleznikow, J.Grütters, C. A. F. M. eds. Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999: The Twelfth ConferenceGerard Noodt InstituutNijmegen109121
    Google Scholar
  28. Verheij, B. 2002

    Evaluating Arguments based on Toulmins Scheme

    Hansen, H. V.Tindale, C. W.Blair, J. A.Johnson, R. H.Pinto, R. C. eds. Argumentation and Its ApplicationsOntario Society for the Study of ArgumentationWindsor, ONCD-ROM
    Google Scholar
  29. Verheij, B. 2003a‘Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation’Artificial Intelligence150291324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verheij, B. 2003b‘DefLog: On the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions’Journal of Logic and Computation13319346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verheij, B. 2003c‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic’Artificial Intelligence and Law11167195Google Scholar
  32. Verheij, B. 2005Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other ArguersT. M. C. Asser PressThe HagueGoogle Scholar
  33. Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1997‘Abstract Argumentation Systems’Artificial Intelligence90225279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walton, D. N. 1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive ReasoningLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations