Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. WG-A: A Framework for Exploring Analogical Generalization and Argumentation.Michael Cooper, Lindsey Fields, Marc Gabriel Badilla & John Licato - 2020 - CogSci 2020.
    Reasoning about analogical arguments is known to be subject to a variety of cognitive biases, and a lack of clarity about which factors can be considered strengths or weaknesses of an analogical argument. This can make it difficult both to design empirical experiments to study how people reason about analogical arguments, and to develop scalable tutoring tools for teaching how to reason and analyze analogical arguments. To address these concerns, we describe WG-A (Warrant Game — Analogy), a framework for people (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair.John Anthony Blair - 2011 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    J. Anthony Blair is a prominent international figure in argumentation studies. He is among the originators of informal logic, an author of textbooks on the informal logic approach to argument analysis and evaluation and on critical thinking, and a founder and editor of the journal Informal Logic. Blair is widely recognized among the leaders in the field for contributing formative ideas to the argumentation literature of the last few decades. This selection of key works provides insights into the history of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Role of Evidence in Chronic Care Decision-Making.Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi - 2020 - Topoi 40 (2):343-358.
    In the domain of medical science, factual evidence is usually considered as the criterion on which to base decisions and construct hypotheses. Evidence-based medicine is the translation of this approach into the field of patient care, and it means providing only the type of care that is based on evidence that proves its effectiveness and appropriateness. However, while the literature has focused on the types and force of evidence used to establish the recommendation and treatment guidelines, the problem of how (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health.Sally Jackson & Jodi Schneider - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):241-272.
    Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard case.Shiyang Yu & Xi Chen - 2023 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 31 (2):239-268.
    The Toulmin model has been proved useful in law and argumentation theory. This model describes the basic process in justifying a claim, which comprises six elements, i.e., claim (C), data (D), warrant (W), backing (B), qualifier (Q), and rebuttal (R). Specifically, in justifying a claim, one must put forward ‘data’ and a ‘warrant’, whereas the latter is authorized by ‘backing’. The force of the ‘claim’ being justified is represented by the ‘qualifier’, and the condition under which the claim cannot be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2006 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
    According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; if premise, then conclusion; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Reasons, Warrants and Premisses.Robert C. Pinto - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
    This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, such as objections, critical questions, rebuttals, refutations, counterarguments, and fallacy charges, in order to contribute to the dialogical approach to argumentation. We shall make use of four parameters to characterize distinct types of critical reaction. First, a critical reaction has a focus, for example on the standpoint, or on another part of an argument. Second, critical reactions appeal to some kind of norm, argumentative or other. Third, they each have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • The “Logic” of Informal Logic.J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    Are there any logical norms for argument evaluation besides soundness and inductive strength? The paper will look at several concepts or models introduced over the years, including those of Wisdom, Toulmin, Wellman, Rescher, defeasible reasoning proponents and Walton to consider whether there is common ground among them that supplies an alternative to deductive validity and inductive strength.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • The Influence of Reading Texts on L2 Reading-to-Write Argumentative Writing.Jingjing Qin & Yingliang Liu - 2021 - Frontiers in Psychology 12:655601.
    Reading-to-write is an essential skill in academic writing, and reading-writing tasks have been widely adopted in standardized English tests. Much more recent literature on integrated reading-writing tasks has focused on writers’ use of source texts or the validity of integrated writing assessment, while little is known about whether the nature of the types of reading texts has any bearing on integrated reading-writing tasks. This study examines whether the types of reading texts (i.e., similar views or opposing views on a debatable (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij (eds): Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. [REVIEW]Lester C. van der Pluijm & Jacky C. Visser - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):527-539.
    David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij (eds): Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-13 DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9214-y Authors Lester C. van der Pluijm, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jacky C. Visser, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evaluating Inferences: the Nature and Role of Warrants.Robert C. Pinto - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):287-317.
    Following David Hitchcock and Stephen Toulmin, this paper takes warrants to be material inference rules. It offers an account of the form such rules should take that is designed (a) to implement the idea that an argument/inference is valid only if it is entitlement preserving and (b) to support a qualitative version of evidence proportionalism. It attempts to capture what gives warrants their normative force by elaborating a concept of reliability tailored to its account of the form such rules should (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations