S1LnLN 1CULMIN AND 1nL CCNS1kUC1ICN CI A MCkL kLCISL AkGUMLN1

ln 1969 Lhe phllosopher of sclence and loglclan SLephen 1oulmln presenLed a deeper analysls of Lhe
sLrucLure of argumenLs ln hls work 1be uses of Atqomeots lnsLead of [usL dlssecLlng Lhe argumenLs lnLo
Lhree parLs llke whaL we dld 1oulmln polnLed ouL LhaL argumenLs are sLrucLurally consLlLuLed of slx
parLs namely 1) Joto 2) clolm 3) wottoot 4) bockloq 3) poollflet and 6) tesetvotloo whlch he
graphlcally represenLed as

AlLhough we can sLlll acLually see Lhe concluslon and premlses of Lhe 1oulmln
model Lhe overall sysLem presenLs a preclsely consLrucLed argumenL



Cr|ter|a for Lva|uat|ng the Strength of an Argument
IUkGLN nA8LkMAS' 1nLCk CI UNIVLkSAL kAGMA1ICS
1he Lheory of unlversal pragmaLlcs concepLuallzes language as composed of Lhree dlfferenL
levels


IUkGLN nA8LkMAS' 1nLCk CI UNIVLkSAL kAGMA1ICS
1 1ruth
W ls lL Lhe LruLh? WhaL ls 18u1P? Pow do we know LhaL someLhlng ls Lrue?
W aslcally when we Lalk of LruLh we for Lhe momenL llmlL LruLh ln Lerms of whaL ls Lhe sLaLe of
affalrs 1hls means LhaL whlch ls referred Lo ln Lhe argumenL ls verlflable ln reallLy
1ruthfu|ness
W ls Lhe speaker slncere ln whaL he/she ls Lalklng abouL Lack of slncerlLy does noL need Lo be
Laken serlously ln a dlscusslon debaLe or argumenLaLlon
k|ghtness
normaLlve rlghLness checks Lhe argumenL wheLher lL saLlsfles Lhe norms of socleLy Pence
W ls Lhe uLLerance approprlaLe?