`Hidden' or `Missing' Premises

Gough, James; Tindale, Christopher W.

doi:10.22329/il.v7i2.2708

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Or in other cases, she may try to hide her meaning by using deceptive tactics and fallacies. Another problem with enthymemes (Burke 1985;Gough and Tindale 1985;Hitchcock 1985) is that inserting assumptions into a text of discourse to make an argument in it valid may not represent what the arguer meant to say. Maybe the argument she intended to put forward is invalid.…”

Section: Preliminary Discussion Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Walton

Reed

2005

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably well for weak arguments, a class of arguments that has always been difficult to analyze without the principle of charity producing a straw man. INTRODUCTIONIn many logic textbooks so-called enthymemes, or arguments with missing (unstated) premises or conclusions, are treated using deductive logic (like syllogistic) to reconstruct the given argument. The ten case studies analyzed and discussed below show why this treatment, while it is useful in some cases, is inadequate to treat the broad range of typical kind of cases of enthymemes in natural language discourse in the best way. It is argued that these argument cases cannot best be reconstructed using only deductive forms of reasoning, or inductive forms of reasoning of the modern kind associated with statistical inference. These cases are shown to require a less strict standard of reasoning that is defeasible in nature. This third kind of argumentation has been much studied in artificial intelligence (AI), where it is called plausible reasoning, and is often associated with abduction (Josephson and Josephson 1994). It is shown through these case studies that the kind of structure needed to reconstruct the missing parts of an argument is the argumentation scheme (Hastings 1963;Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969;Kienpointner 1987Kienpointner , 1992Walton 1996;Garssen 2001). It is shown that the argumentation schemes most useful for analysis of many enthymemes are based on defeasible generalizations of a kind that are that are subject to exceptions. 1 This defeasibilistic view of enthymemes is not as new as it may sound to many readers. It can be shown to be very close to what may have been Aristotle's original doctrine of the enthymeme, according to the view of some commentators Synthese (2005) 145: 339-370

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Discussion Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Walton

Reed

2005

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…94-95). As noted earlier, unexpressed premises are just a subset of all implicit assumptions, and there are many propositions that function as background assumptions without having the function as premises of an argument (Govier 1972;Ennis 1982;Gough and Tindale 1985;Holtzman 1997;Plumer 1999;Gerritsen 2001). The function of unexpressed premises is to fill a gap in the inference whereas background assumptions may have all kinds of functions necessary for the argument.…”

Section: The Search For the Unexpressed Premisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is an important difference between gap-filling unexpressed premises and tacit background assumptions and there are various types of such assumptions (Govier 1972;Ennis 1982;Gough and Tindale 1985;Holtzman 1997;Plumer 1999;Gerritsen 2001). There are a lot of assumptions that are necessary in order for arguments to work, but which do not fill gaps in the inference-the standard role for missing premises.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argument Structure

Juthe¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses several issues in argumentation theory. The over-arching goal is to discuss how a theory of analogical argument schemes fits the pragmadialectical theory of argument schemes and argument structures, and how one should properly reconstruct both single and complex argumentation by analogy. I also propose a unified model that explains how formal valid deductive argumentation relates to argument schemes in general and to analogical argument schemes in particular. The model suggests "scheme-specificvalidity" i.e. that there are contrasting species of validity for each type of argument scheme that derive from one generic conception of validity. Résumé

show abstract

“…But there is a problem (Ennis 1982;Burke 1985;Gough and Tindale 1985;Hitchcock 1985). If the analyst is allowed to fill in any proposition needed to make such an inference valid, he or she may be inserting assumptions into the text of discourse that the speaker did not mean to be part of his or her argument.…”

Section: Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of argumentation in health product messages

Walton

2010

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an analysis of argumentation in direct-to-consumer health product ads in Newsweek that brings out special features of the arguments used in the ads, including practical reasoning, chained arguments, enthymemes, and prolepsis. A way to help overcome deficiencies in techniques of tailored health communication in consumer health informatics is shown by using argumentation schemes, argument visualisation tools, and dialogue models to frame these persuasive communication messages. The evidence collected is shown to be useful to allow the health informatics communicator and the person to whom message was directed to interact in a dialogue format where arguments can be put forward by both parties in a way that responds to the previous arguments and questions of the other party.Keywords: practical reasoning; argumentation schemes; Araucaria; persuasion dialogue; direct-to-consumer ads; consumer health informatics In this paper, some illustrative examples of direct-to-consumer health product advertisements are analysed using argumentation methods, and some conclusions about the analyses are drawn. The three main methods applied are argumentation schemes, argument visualisation, and dialogue structures that represent the context of use of an argument. The ads studied include commercials for pharmaceuticals, as well as ads for other medications, including health foods, and treatments and devices that purport to have health benefits. It is shown that they use arguments of a kind that fit structures of kinds known in argumentation studies, especially one particular argumentation scheme. The findings are interesting for many reasons. They can be applied both to the crafting of the ads and to the enhancement of critical thinking skills for intelligent consumers. They are also applicable to recent efforts to use computational techniques to assist consumer health informatics to inform consumers and improve health care.According to Kukafka (2005, p. 29), applying persuasive argumentation theories to consumer healthcare informatics for behavioural change has turned out to be a complex undertaking, because of the limitations of some of the tools used. The natural language generation systems used to provide explanation and advice to consumers have proved to have limitations and shortcomings. One problem is that they do not explore planning mechanisms that account for the generation of text consisting of multiple arguments. Another is that although they have attempted to improve the construction of persuasive argument through rhetorical structure theory, these attempts lack a theory of how persuasive arguments in health communication are put together in a coherent sequence. At the same time, the tailored approach to health communication, where the behavioural change strategy is intended to reach a specific person, although it is proving to be a successful method, clearly needs better argumentation tools that allow the health informatics communicator and the person to whom message was directed to interact in a dial...

show abstract

`Hidden' or `Missing' Premises

Abstract: `Hidden' or `Missing' Premises

Cited by 24 publications

References 1 publication

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argument Structure

The structure of argumentation in health product messages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About