Abstract
This empirical investigation examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements over the solutions to categorical syllogisms. Forty-six participants completed puzzles in logic. After completing the puzzles, participants were then randomly paired into 23 to compare their answers and to resolve 159 disagreements. Results indicate that the most frequently used strategies for resolving disagreements centered on: (a) arguing over the merits of the position (47% of the time) and (b) appealing to past solutions as a means of addressing current disputes (28% of the time). In addition, the data revealed that the most frequently used strategy (arguing the merits of the positions) was no more effective than random choice (52% increase in correct solutions) while the strategy of appealing to past solutions significantly aided dyads in reaching correct solutions (70% increase in correct solutions).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benoit, P.: 1981, ‘The Use of Argument by Preschool Children: The Emergent Production of Rules of Winning Arguments’, in G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes (eds.), Dimensions of Argument, Annandale, VA: SCA, pp. 624–642.
Benoit, P.: 1983, ‘Extended Arguments in Children's Discourse’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 20, 72–89.
Benoit, P.: 1985, Negotiating Shared Reality in the Interpersonal Arguments of Married Couples, paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Denver, Colorado.
Hildebrand, D. K., J. D. Laing, and H. Rosenthal: 1977, Prediction Analysis of Cross Classifications, New York: Wiley.
Hollihan, T., P. Riley, and K. Freadhoff: 1986, ‘Arguing for Justice: An Analysis of Arguing in Small Claims Court’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 22, 187–195.
Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, ‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251–265.
Jacobs, S., M. Allen, S. Jackson, and D. Patrell: 1985, ‘Can Ordinary Arguers Recognize a Valid Conclusion If It Walks Up and Bites Them on the Butt?’, in J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, and G. B. Walker (eds.), Argument and Social Practice, Annandale, VA: SCA, pp. 665–674.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1981, ‘Argument as a Natural Category’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 118–132.
Miller, G.: 1969, ‘Some Factors Influencing Judgments of the Logical Validity of Arguments: A Research Review’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 55, 276–286.
Newell, S. and R. Rieke: 1986, ‘A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 22, 212–222.
Putnam, L. and P. Geist: 1985, ‘Argument in Bargaining: An Analysis of the Reasoning Process’, Southern Speech Communication Journal 50, 225–245.
Putman, L. and S. Wilson: 1987, Argumentation and Bargaining Strategies as Discriminators of Integrative and Distributive Outcomes, paper presented at the First International Conference of the Conflict Management Group, Fairfax, Virginia.
Putnam, L., S. Wilson, M. Waltman, and D. Turner: 1986, ‘The Evolution of Case Arguments in Teacher's Bargaining’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 23, 63–82.
Robert, H.: 1970, Robert's Rules of Order, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman Co.
Trapp, R. and N. Hoff: 1985, ‘A Model of Serial Argument in Interpersonal Relationships’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 22, 1–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allen, M., Burrell, N.A. Resolving arguments accurately. Argumentation 4, 213–221 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175424
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175424