Skip to main content

A Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes

Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA,volume 28)

Abstract

One of the crucial problems of argumentation schemes as illustrated in (Walton, Reed & Macagno 2008) is their practical use for the purpose of analyzing texts and producing arguments. The high number and the lack of a classification criterion make this instrument extremely difficult to apply practically. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure of argumentation schemes and outline a possible criterion of classification based on alternative and mutually-exclusive possibilities. Such a criterion is based not on what an argument is, but on how it can be understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means principle, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.

Keywords

  • Semantic Relation
  • Logical Rule
  • Argumentation Scheme
  • External Argument
  • Disjunctive Syllogism

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_14
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Un avvertimento indiretto una volta mi fu recapitato tramite un avvocato, nel corso di uno dei miei primi procedimenti di mafia a Palermo. Mi riferì, «nel mio interesse» (così disse …), che il suo cliente mafioso si lamentava di me perché io ero un po’ troppo «rigido», e quindi era meglio che stessi «più attento». Anche in quel caso feci la mia segnalazione per iscritto al capufficio e alla Procura di Caltanissetta.” (Ingroia 2010, p. 47).

References

  • Aristotle (1984). Topics (W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. A. (2007). The “logic” informal logic. In H. V. Hansen, et al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground CD-ROM (pp. 1–16). Windsor, ON: OSSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boethius, S. (1978). De Topicis Differentiis (edited with a translation, introduction and commentary by E. Stump). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M. T. (2003). Topica (edited with a translation, introduction and commentary by T. Reinhardt). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pater, W. (1965). Les Topiques d’Aristote et la Dialectique Platonicienne. Fribourg, Germany: Éditions de St. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Everardus, N. (1607). Loci Argumentorum legales. Venetiis: apud Matthaeum Valentinum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garssen, B. (2001). Argumentation schemes. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godden, D. (2005). Deductivism as an interpretive strategy: A reply to Groarke’s defense of reconstructive deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(3), 168–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, S. (1998). Probability logic and probabilistic induction. Epidemiology, 9, 322–332.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Green-Pedersen, N. J. (1984). The tradition of topics in the middle age. Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grennan, W. (1997). Informal logic. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, A. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois: Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingroia, A. (2010). Nel labirinto degli dèi. Milano: Il Saggiatore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J., & Josephson, S. (1996). Abductive inference. computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (1992a). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart, Germany: Fromman-Holzboog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (1992b). How to classify arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 178–188). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2012). Argumentation as a tool to understand complexity of knowledge integration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International STEM in Education Conference—Beijing, China—24–27 November 2012 (pp. 154–160). Beijing: Beijing Normal University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, J. (1885). The law of presumptive evidence. San Francisco: Bancroft & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumer, C. (2011). Argument schemes—an epistemological approach. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011 (pp. 1–32). Windsor, ON (CD ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Damele, G. (2013). The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic, 33, 365–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Douglas, W. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48(1), 26–53.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27, 225–243.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014a). Emotive language in argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014b). Argumentation schemes and topical relations. In G. Gobber & A. Rocci (Eds.), Language, reason and education (pp. 185–216). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Zavatta, B. (2014). Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation, 28, 453–488.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2009). Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structuring of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), June 8–12. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona (pp. 98–107). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19, 1–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory and probability modeling: An alternative framework for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychology, 46, 84–106.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. Edited by K.L. Ketner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, C. (1988). Induction does not exist in epidemiology, either. In K. J. Rothman (Ed.), Causal inference (pp. 153–161). Chestnut Hill, MA: E.R.I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars Topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (1989). Dialectic and its place in the development of medieval logic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2006). Argumentative reasoning patterns. In Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Riva del Garda, Italy, August 28–September 1 (pp. 48–51). Trento: University of Trento Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Macagno, F. (2015). A Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_14

Download citation