Abstract:According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions (CQs) 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:… Show more
“…The new scheme will also need critical questions. Yu and Zenker have proposed a systematic account of critical questions (Yu and Zenker 2020, 487–90). As with their definition of argumentation scheme that we quoted above, this proceeds from Toulmin's distinction between data, warrant, and claim.…”
Section: Argumentation Schemesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S is an argument scheme if , and only if , S is a meta‐level argument with at least one premise and a conclusion, where the transfer of the premise(s)'s acceptability to the conclusion grounds in a substantive—as opposed to a logical—relation, R , that holds between the scheme's sentences, their parts, or their referents. (Yu and Zenker 2020, 479)…”
A queue‐jumping argument concludes that some course of action is impermissible by likening it to the presumptively impermissible act of jumping a queue. Arguments of this sort may be found in a disparate range of contexts and in support of policies favoured by both left and right. Examples include arguments against private education and private health care but also arguments against accommodations for learning disabilities, refugee resettlement, and birthright citizenship. We infer that, although queue‐jumping arguments are strictly analogies, they constitute a sufficiently distinct class of arguments to justify their separate treatment. The paper proposes an argumentation scheme for queue‐jumping arguments and demonstrates its applicability to some existing arguments of this type.
“…The new scheme will also need critical questions. Yu and Zenker have proposed a systematic account of critical questions (Yu and Zenker 2020, 487–90). As with their definition of argumentation scheme that we quoted above, this proceeds from Toulmin's distinction between data, warrant, and claim.…”
Section: Argumentation Schemesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S is an argument scheme if , and only if , S is a meta‐level argument with at least one premise and a conclusion, where the transfer of the premise(s)'s acceptability to the conclusion grounds in a substantive—as opposed to a logical—relation, R , that holds between the scheme's sentences, their parts, or their referents. (Yu and Zenker 2020, 479)…”
A queue‐jumping argument concludes that some course of action is impermissible by likening it to the presumptively impermissible act of jumping a queue. Arguments of this sort may be found in a disparate range of contexts and in support of policies favoured by both left and right. Examples include arguments against private education and private health care but also arguments against accommodations for learning disabilities, refugee resettlement, and birthright citizenship. We infer that, although queue‐jumping arguments are strictly analogies, they constitute a sufficiently distinct class of arguments to justify their separate treatment. The paper proposes an argumentation scheme for queue‐jumping arguments and demonstrates its applicability to some existing arguments of this type.
“…In the review of literature, it was seen that there are some differences in the definitions of the six components. Thus, to examine these components in detail and to determine the extent of them for this study, some studies in the literature (e.g., Boero et al, 2010;Brinkerhoff, 2007;Conner et al, 2014aConner et al, , 2014bFreeman, 2005;Knipping, 2008;Krummheuer, 1995;Metaxas et al, 2016;Nardi et al, 2012;Stephan & Rasmussen, 2002;Toulmin, 2003;Van Ness & Maher, 2018;Yu & Zenker, 2020) were compared by focusing on both forms and functions in the argument. By combining a variety of definitions of these components presented in the literature, the following table was prepared.…”
Section: Components Of Toulmin's Argument Modelmentioning
This study aims to examine the components of collective argumentation of pre-service middle school mathematics teachers during geometric construction activities. To scrutinize this issue, case study research was utilized. The participants were 14 pre-service middle school mathematics teachers who worked collectively by forming four groups. During the data collection process, the groups worked on four geometric construction tasks by using compass-straightedge or GeoGebra. The findings presented that the collective argumentation processes were depicted by means of eleven components. In more detail, the six components of Toulmin’s argument model which are data, warrant, claim, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier were insufficient to represent collective argumentation. Instead of claim, the term conclusion was used in this study since the associated data and warrant were provided in the argumentation. The collective argumentation processes of the groups involved not only the mentioned six components but also the five additional components, which were named conclusion/data, target conclusion, guidance, challenger, and objection. The new components might be used while investigating the argumentation process in other disciplines.
“…Схем много, их тяжело систематизировать и использовать; схемы, выделенные согласно одной классификации, не всегда соответствуют схемам, выделенным по другой классификации, но главное -в силу ряда обстоятельств у нас нет универсального механизма оценки рассуждений, в первую очередь их релевантности. Походы к решению указанной проблемы предлагаются, в частности, Вагемансом (Wagemans 2016), Годду (Goddu 2021), Ю и Ценкером (Yu, Zenker 2020).…”
Section: когнитивное и коммуникативное измерения смысла и значенияunclassified
Аргументативные схемы являются удобным инструментом для идентификации, реконструкции и оценки естественных рассуждений. Последняя предполагает наличие у схемы критических вопросов. Однако этот инструмент до сих пор не предлагает единого набора правил реконструкции и оценки аргументов. Работы в этом направлении уже ведутся. В связи с этим будут рассмотрены некоторые подходы, на базе которых я предложу свой вариант для дальнейших исследований. Продуктивным оказывается общий набор критических вопросов для оценки аргументов (идея Ю и Ценкера), но он будет работать лучше, если сделать его варьируемым. На направления вариаций может указать анализ аргументативных схем на метауровне.
The argumentative schemes approach is an instrument that can be applied for natural reasoning identification, reconstruction and evaluation. The latter assumes that each scheme is equipped with critical questions. However, this instrument does not provide any general set of rules for both reasoning reconstruction and evaluation. The present paper scrutinizes several approaches that contribute to this problem, and offers a way for further investigations. In short, Yu и Zenker suggest a general set of critical questions for argument evaluation. I demonstrate that the set will work better if it is variable. The variations can be specified if argumentative schemes are analyzed at their meta-level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
