Argumentation Theory - Internal Structure of Arguments

Internal Structure of Arguments

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following

  1. a set of assumptions or premises
  2. a method of reasoning or deduction and
  3. a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.

Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.

Read more about this topic:  Argumentation Theory

Famous quotes containing the words internal, structure and/or arguments:

    Even if fathers are more benignly helpful, and even if they spend time with us teaching us what they know, rarely do they tell us what they feel. They stand apart emotionally: strong perhaps, maybe caring in a nonverbal, implicit way; but their internal world remains mysterious, unseen, “What are they really like?” we ask ourselves. “What do they feel about us, about the world, about themselves?”
    Augustus Y. Napier (20th century)

    A special feature of the structure of our book is the monstrous but perfectly organic part that eavesdropping plays in it.
    Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977)

    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought.
    Milan Kundera (b. 1929)