Notes taken from ‘Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation’, by Frans van Eemeren et al.
1, Single Arguments
The defence of a standpoint often consists of more than a single argument. Several single arguments can be combined and arranged in a number of different ways to form the defence of a standpoint…
In the simplest case, a defence consists of one single argument, that is, an argument in fully explicit form consists of two and only two premises. Usually, one of these is unexpressed, so that the single argument appears to consist of only one premise...
2, Multiple, Coordinative, and Subordinative Argumentation
Multiple Argumentation: Consists of alternative defences of the same standpoint. These defences do not depend on each other to support the standpoint and are, in principle, of equal weight.
Coordinative Argumentation: One single attempt at defending the standpoint that consists of a combination of arguments that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defence.
Subordinative Argumentation: Arguments are given for arguments. The defence of the initial standpoint is made layer after layer.
3, The Complexity of the Argumentation Structure
Argumentation can be of greater or lesser complexity, depending on the number of single arguments it consists of and the relationship between these arguments. The number of arguments that need to be advanced depends, among other things, on the nature of the difference of opinion.
Reasons for Multiple Argumentation: The protagonist anticipates that one or more of the attempts to defend the standpoint might be unsuccessful. Also, acceptability is a matter of degree; the additional arguments may raise the level of acceptance.
4, Representing the Argumentation Structure Schematically
Complex argumentation can always be broken down into a number of single arguments. And that is exactly what happens when the argumentation structure is analysed…
Single Argument: First assigned the number of the standpoint to which it refers (e.g., number 2), followed by a number of its own (e.g., 2.1). An unexpressed premise that has been made explicit is given in parenthesis and is assigned a number followed by an apostrophe (‘) (e.g., 2.1’).
Multiple Argument: Each argument is assigned the number of the standpoint followed by a number of its own: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and so on.
Coordinate Argumentation: The single arguments are all assigned the same number, followed by a letter (2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2c, etc).
Subordinative Argumentation: Indicated by two or more decimal points (e.g., 2.1.1 or 2.1.1a or 2.1.1’).
5, The Presentation of Complex Argumentation
The protagonist almost never explicitly indicates how the argument is structured. There are, however, certain words and expressions that may serve as indicators of different types of structure.
6, a Maximally Argumentative Analysis
It is important to determine whether the argumentation is coordinative or multiple… In truly ambiguous cases, it is preferable to opt for an analysis as multiple argumentation… If each of several single arguments by itself is sufficient to defend the standpoint, then argumentation consisting of two or more such arguments must be unassailable. And if one of these arguments is undermined, it does not do irreparable damage to the defence.
7, Unexpressed Premises and Complex Argumentation
It is preferable when making unexpressed premises explicit to assume that for every incomplete single argument there is one unexpressed premise. When the context is well-defined, it is usually possible to further specify the unexpressed premise. It may even turn out that a whole chain of subordinative arguments was implied and can now be reconstructed.
1 comment:
Notes and Examples
Single Argument: “Petrewsky has earned the gift because he has worked very hard for it.” The unexpressed premise is something like “Hard work should be rewarded”.
Multiple Argumentation: “You can’t possibly have met my mother in M&S in Sheringham last week, because Sheringham doesn’t have a M&S, and as a matter of fact she died two years ago.”
Coordinative Argumentation: The component parts can be dependent on each other in several ways. Sometimes… because each argument by itself is too weak to conclusively support the standpoint: “The dinner was organised perfectly, for the room was exactly the right size for the number of guests, the arrangement of tables was well thought out, and the service was excellent”. Another way… when a second argument rules out possible objections to the first argument, thereby reinforcing it: “We had no choice but to go out and eat, because there was nothing to eat at home and all the stores were closed”.
Subordinative Argumentation: “I can’t help you paint your room next week, because I have no time next week, because I have to study for an exam, because otherwise I will lose my scholarship, because I’m not making good progress in my studies, because I’ve already been at it for more than five years.”
Indicators of Multiple Argumentation: “Needless to say”, “in fact”, “apart from”, “not to mention”, “another reason for this is”, “one argument for this is”, “in the first place”, “secondly”, “by the way”, “incidentally”, “quite apart from”, “aside from”.
Indicators of Coordinative Argumentation: “As well as the fact that”, “in addition (to the fact that)”, “on top of that”, “and don’t forget that”, “especially because”, “even”, “plus”, “not only… but also”, “more importantly”.
Indicators of Subordinative Argumentation: Any of the standard indicators of argumentation: “because”, “for that reason”, “therefore”, “after all”, “that is why”, “since”, “in view of”, and so on.
Unexpressed Premises and Complex Argumentation: Suppose that the popular singer Madonna is in a TV ad, surrounded by a group of attractive members of the jet set, and confides to the audience the following message: “You should use Wonder skin lotion. I use it myself!” Clearly, something is unexpressed here… The background information allows us to come up with a more specific (and more complex) formulation of the unexpressed premise, leading to the following reconstruction of Madonna’s argumentation:
1 You should use Wonder skin lotion.
1.1 Madonna uses Wonder skin lotion.
(1.1’) (Whatever Madonna does, you should do too.)
(1.1’.1) (Madonna belongs to the jet set.)
(1.1’.1’) (Everything the jet set does, you should imitate.)
Post a Comment