Indicators of Argument Schemes

Each single or coordinative argumentation is based on an argument scheme that creates a specific justifying relationship between the applied argument or (in the case of coordination) the applied arguments and the standpoint at issue. A central question when evaluating an argumentative discussion or text is whether the argument schemes that the defender of a particular standpoint uses are in fact appropriate and correctly applied. The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory distinguishes, depending on the kind of justifying relationship the argumentation is based on, three (main) types of argumentation, that each have their own argument scheme: argumentation by comparison, causal argumentation, and symptomatic argumentation. To each type of argumentation specific standards of evaluation apply which are tuned to the kind of justifying relationship that occurs in the argumentation. For each of the three argument schemes different critical questions are relevant. Anyone who uses a particular argument scheme takes, in fact, the first step in a dialectical testing procedure that verifies whether the argumentation can withstand relevant forms of criticism. In anticipation of this criticism, the defender of a particular standpoint may already follow up his argumentation with responses to relevant objections. In a critical discussion, the opposition’s responses always relate to the evaluative issues that are relevant to the argument scheme in question.