By James B. Freeman
This monograph first provides a style of diagramming argument macrostructure, synthesizing the traditional circle and arrow technique with the Toulmin version. A theoretical justification of this system via a dialectical knowing of argument, a severe exam of Toulmin on warrants, a radical dialogue of the linked-convergent contrast, and an account of the correct reconstruction of enthymemes follows.
Read Online or Download Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory (Argumentation Library) PDF
Similar rhetoric books
Written for the lay reader in addition to for tutorial literary theorists, this ebook bridges the gulf among the creative avant-garde in track, visible arts, and experimental literature and the overall public. Higgins delves into a number of components, yet here's an instance of 1 type of poem he works with: those pieces that stream like thisthose pieces i say are snowflakes i saythose pieces that stream like thisthose pieces Along with many different artistsJohn Cage, Merce Cunningham, Robert Rauschenberg, and Jackson Mac Low come to mindDick Higgins has investigated and invented quite a few genres and kinds, operating specifically in intermedia, the fusion of 2 or extra discrete media.
A historic survey of the origins, progress and decline of the "plain style", a style of theoretical discourse that mirrored the mode of expression exemplified by means of Christ. Peter Auksi attracts on an array of classical, biblical, patristic, medieval and Renaissance fundamental assets to give an explanation for this complicated perfect of spiritualized rhetoric.
Extra info for Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory (Argumentation Library)
Hence, we should not represent the counter as a premise. e. drawing just a line to the defeater box. We represent the counter’s neutralizing function by crossing out the defeater countered (See Fig. ). Should a proponent counter an undercutting defeater by conceding it and bringing forward some consideration in turn defeating its force, we should represent it just as we represented the counter to such a defeater in Fig. 25, but omitting the head of the arrow to the line connecting the defeater box to the core argument.
The proponent is countering this undercutter by denying it and presenting an argument for that denial. This method then is exactly parallel to countering a mooted rebutting defeater, which counts as further evidence that rebutting and undercutting defeaters can be represented together in one defeater box. The effect of this counter is to neutralize the undercutter, but not in itself to give additional evidence for the claim that extramarital sexual relations are sinful. Hence, we should not represent the counter as a premise.
Otherwise, his ceteris paribus case is compromised, if not defeated. Likewise, if even before the defense attorney raised the issue of whether the eyewitness were wearing her eyeglasses, there was significant question of whether the witness could make the necessary observations reliably—there was no presumption that she could—the prosecutor’s argument would again fail to be successful. Should the challenger be aware then that rebutting or undercutting defeaters held or even that there was a non-trivial question of their holding, she may ask the proponent why he is so sure that his premises render his conclusion acceptable.