10/4/22

THE SOUNDNESS OF ARGUMENTATION

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2022

TODAY, WE WILL. . .

¡ Describe the logical, dialectical, and rhetorical perspectives on Argument

Evaluation
¡ Establish the procedure that you use to evaluate argumentation.

1
 10/4/22

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

¡ Argumentation is a field informed by three traditions, each of which provides a

perspective on what counts as an acceptable argument.
¡ Logic
¡ Dialectic
¡ Rhetoric
¡ The focus of this class is on the Dialectical and Rhetorical Perspectives, but
all three traditions play a part in the evaluation of argumentation.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

¡ In 2019, Amazon decided to not build their

2nd HQ in NYC.
¡ In a NYT Op-ed: Mayer de Blasio said:
If a small but vocal group of New Yorkers
questions your company’s intentions or
integrity, prove them wrong.
Instead, Amazon proved them right.”

2
 10/4/22

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

Tradition Task Standard of Evaluation
Logic:

Dialectic:

Rhetoric:

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

Tradition Task
Logic: The science of reasoning. Examine the Formal Validity of
Argumentation: the formal logical
structure of an argument.
Dialectic:
Standard of Evaluation
Rational Persuasiveness: A good
argument has a valid structure
providing rational support for its
conclusion.

Rhetoric:

3
 10/4/22

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

¡ In 2019, Amazon decided to not build ¡ Is this argument rationally

their 2 HQ in NYC.
nd
persuasive?
¡ In a NYT Op-ed: Mayer de Blasio said: ¡ Modus Tollens (Deny the
If a small but vocal group of New Consequent)
Yorkers questions your company’s ¡ If P then Q
intentions or integrity, prove them
wrong. ¡ Not Q
Instead, Amazon proved them right.” ¡ Therefore P

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

Tradition
Logic: The science of reasoning.
Dialectic: The interactional process
of testing knowledge through asking
and answering critical questions.
Rhetoric:
Task
Examine the Formal Validity of
Argumentation: the formal logical
structure of an argument.
Test argumentation through critical
questioning.
Standard of Evaluation
Rational Persuasiveness: A good
argument has a valid structure
providing rational support for its
conclusion.
Dialectical Reasonability: A good
argument is one that withstands
critical questioning.

10

4

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
¡ In 2019, Amazon decided to not build
their 2nd HQ in NYC.
¡ In a NYT Op-ed: Mayer de Blasio said:
If a small but vocal group of New
Yorkers questions your company’s
intentions or integrity, prove them
wrong.
Instead, Amazon proved them right.”
11
PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
Tradition
Logic: The science of reasoning.
Dialectic: The interactional process
of testing knowledge through asking
and answering critical questions in
context.
Rhetoric: The strategic use of
symbols to influence people.
12
10/4/22
¡ Is the argument dialectically
reasonable? Let’s ask a critical
question:
¡ Did the inability of Amazon to
respond to a small but vocal group
actually lead to their decision to not
build their 2nd HQ in NYC?
Task Standard of Evaluation
Examine the Formal Validity of Rational Persuasiveness: A good
Argumentation: the formal logical argument has a valid structure
structure of an argument. providing rational support for its
conclusion.
Test argumentation through critical Dialectical Reasonability: A good
questioning. argument is one that withstands
critical questioning.
Create persuasive arguments tailored Rhetorical Effectiveness: A good
to the beliefs, commitments, or values argument is one that is accepted by
of an audience. its audience.
5

PERSPECTIVES ON THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT
¡ In 2019, Amazon decided to not build
their 2nd HQ in NYC.
¡ In a NYT Op-ed: Mayer de Blasio said:
If a small but vocal group of New
Yorkers questioning your company’s
intentions or integrity, prove them
wrong.
Instead, Amazon proved them right.”
13
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
¡ Step 1: The evaluation of
argumentation should start from an
analytic overview—Review
Chapter 5
14
10/4/22
¡ How did his strategic selection of
words “activate” key beliefs,
commitments, or values that would
lead to the audience’s acceptance of
his argument?
1. The stages of the critical discussion
2. The difference of opinion and the
distribution of dialectical roles
3. The reasons constituting the
argumentation
4. The argumentation structure
6
 10/4/22

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

¡ Step 2: Determine whether the

argumentation as a whole is
consistent: Check for logical and
pragmatic inconsistencies.
¡ Logical inconsistency occurs
when statements are made that
cannot possible both be true
because they contradict each other.
¡ The following statements form a
contradiction: One statement is the
direct opposite of another
¡ Mount Lemmon is in Arizona.
¡ Mount Lemmon is not in Arizona.

15

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

a) Some wolves are pack animals.

¡ Which of the following statements is
logically consistent with the
following:
b) Some wolves are not pack animals.
c) No wolves are pack animals.
d) Not all wolves are pack animals.

¡ All wolves are pack animals. e) It is false that some wolves are not
pack animals.
f) All wolves are not pack animals.
e, a

16

7

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
¡ Pragmatic inconsistency occurs
when argumentation contains two
statements that lay claim to states of
affairs that cannot be the case at the
same time or otherwise have
consequences in the real world that
are contradictory.
17
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
¡ Step 3: After consistency has been
assessed, we can Evaluate the
soundness of individual
arguments
¡ To do so, we need to break down
complex arguments into single
arguments apply the following three
tests
18
10/4/22
¡ If you make a promise to drive your
friend home on the weekend, but
your car has been towed because you
didn’t pay your parking fines.
¡ A student claims to have “done their
best” but fails to seek assistance so
they don’t follow the guidelines for an
assignment.
1. Each of the statements that make up
the argument must be acceptable.
2. The reasoning underlying the
argument must be valid.
3. The “argument scheme” employed
must be appropriate and correctly
used.
8
 10/4/22

1. EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT MAKE UP THE

ARGUMENT MUST BE ACCEPTABLE.

¡ The acceptability of argumentative ¡ “Level is a palindrome”

statements is easier to determine in
some instances rather than others. ¡ My desk is dark brown.

¡ Factual statements can be verified ¡ Claudia, the cat, weighs just less
through research or observation than 13 pounds.

19

1. EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT MAKE UP THE

ARGUMENT MUST BE ACCEPTABLE.

¡ Parents should take care of their

children.
¡ Statements based on commonplace
¡ You shouldn’t give up when your
values and judgements can also be
goal is in reach.
easily accepted.
¡ Good quality is always superior to
junk.

20

9
 10/4/22

1. EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT MAKE UP THE

ARGUMENT MUST BE ACCEPTABLE.

¡ Breast-feeding is preferable to
bottle-feeding.
¡ Controversial statements
¡ A man shouldn’t be pushing a baby
require special attention if they are
carriage.
not supported by argumentation.
¡ It’s not good for the child if the
mother works.

21

2. THE REASONING UNDERLYING THE ARGUMENT MUST BE

VALID.

If Claudia has a tail, then she is a dog.

Claudia has a tail.
¡ A single argument is sound only if the
underlying reasoning is logically valid or if So, she is a dog.
it can be made valid.
¡ Keep in mind: Validity is determined
independently from the truthfulness of
its content.
¡ (Claudia is our cat. She is not a dog.
Yet, the argument is valid)

22

10
 10/4/22

2. THE REASONING UNDERLYING THE ARGUMENT MUST BE

VALID.

¡ Herman is a real man because he is

¡ Any incomplete single argument can macho.
be made into a logically valid
argument by providing its logically Modus Ponens
minimum hypothetical If P then Q: (If Herman is macho, then
conditional: a modus ponens-like “if. he is a real man).
. .then…” statement that links P Herman is macho (P)
argumentation to standpoint
Therefore Q He is a real man

23

WORK IN PAIRS

¡ Reconstruct the two following arguments

with its logically minimum hypothetical
condition to produce a valid argument
1. Ronald’s headache will go away now. He Modus Ponens (Affirm the Antecedent)
just took two aspirins. If P then Q
2. A lottery for entrance to the university P
is absurd. A lottery is not used to
determine who gets to participate in Therefor Q
the Olympic Games either.
3. I will never go to the Fulton Market
Trattoria again in my life! The first time I
was there, they were out of calamari,
and the second time, the service was
terrible.

24

11
 10/4/22

2. THE REASONING UNDERLYING THE ARGUMENT MUST BE

VALID.

¡ Herman is a real man because he is

¡ The logical reconstruction of a single macho.
argument is not sufficient for the
evaluation of argumentation because ¡ Compare:
it is not particularly informative. ¡ If Herman is macho, then he is a
¡ It eliminates the verbal, contextual, real man.
situational, and pragmatic factors that with
influence the course and outcome of
argumentation. ¡ Being macho is a core
characteristic of being a real man.

25

3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE

APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.

¡ If argumentation is explicitly expressed in Example: Symptomatic Argumentation

formal logic, you can stop at step 2.
¡ In everyday life, people rarely use logic to Y is true of X
produce explicitly valid arguments to you
need to proceed to step 3. because: Z is true of X
and: Z is symptomatic of Y
¡ They instead rely on Argument Schemes:
conventionalized ways of representing the
relation between what is stated in the
argumentation and what is stated in the
standpoint.
¡ There are three primary argument schemes:
Symptomatic, Analogy, and Causal

28

12

3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE
APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.
Each scheme consists of two components:
1. The reasons through which the
acceptability of the argumentation
is transferred to the standpoint.
29
3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE
APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.
Example
¡ Jack is an experienced teacher,
because he spends hardly any time on
lesson preparation.
30
10/4/22
Example: Symptomatic Argumentation
1. The Standpoint (e.g.,Y is true of X)
2. Argumentation (e.g. because Z is true
of X)
3. The reason (usually unexpressed) that
authorizes the transfer of acceptability
from argumentation to standpoint (e.g.,
and Z is symptomatic of Y).
Example: Symptomatic Argumentation
Y is true of X
because: Z is true of X
and: Z is symptomatic of Y
13

3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE
APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.
Example
¡ Jack is an experienced teacher,
because he spends hardly any time on
lesson preparation.
31
3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE
APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.
Each scheme consists of two components:
2. A set of critical questions that
can be used to:
a. Dialectically evaluate the
reasonability of the argument
and
b. Provide additional reasoning to
make the argument stronger.
32
10/4/22
Inference Structure
¡ Jack (X) is an experienced teacher
(Y)
¡ Because: Jack (X) spends little time
on lesson preparation (Z)
¡ and: Spending little time on lesson
preparation (Z) is symptomatic of an
experienced teacher (Y).
Example: Critical Questions
1. Primary critical question: Is Z
indeed symptomatic of Y?
2. Aren’t there also Ys that do not have
the characteristic of Z?
3. Aren’t there also non-Ys that do have
the characteristic of Z?
14
 10/4/22

3. THE “ARGUMENT SCHEME” EMPLOYED MUST BE

APPROPRIATE AND CORRECTLY USED.

Inference Structure Critical Questions

¡ Jack (X) is an experienced teacher (Y)
¡ Because: Jack (X) spends little time on lesson
preparation (Z)
¡ and: Spending little time on lesson preparation
(Z) is symptomatic of an experienced teacher
(Y).
1. Primary critical question: Is minimal
lesson prep (Z) indeed symptomatic
of an experienced teacher (Y)?
2. Aren’t there also experienced teachers (Ys)
that do not have the characteristic of
minimal lesson prep (Z)?
3. Aren’t there also inexperienced teachers
(non-Ys) that do have the characteristic of
minimal lesson prep (Z?)

33

FOR NEXT TIME

¡ Finish Ch. 6
¡ Explore the three types of
argumentation schemes: Symptomatic,
Analogy, and Causal

34

15