Abstract
One can generate argumentation schemes in three ways. A bottom-up approach of extracting patterns of argument from a corpus of actual arguments can be somewhat arbitrary, and is likely to produce an unsatisfactory guide to understanding and evaluating arguments. A top-down approach starting from taxonomies of statements and rules of inference risks a combinatorial explosion of abstract unrealized possibilities. A combined approach is more useful.
Bibliographical note: A slightly different version of this chapter was previously published in Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale (London: College Publications, 2010), 157–166.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Correction in the present republication: The original article had the determination relation reversed.
References
Ashley, Kevin D. 1988. Arguing by analogy in law: A case-based model. In Analogical reasoning: Perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy, ed. D. H. Helman, 205–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1949. On invention, trans. H. M. Hubbell. Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 386. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ennis, Robert H. 2009. Investigating and assessing multiple-choice critical thinking tests. In Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher order thinking be tested?, ed. Jan Sobocan and Leo Groarke, 75–97. London, Ont.: Althouse Press.
Garssen, Bart. 2001. Argument schemes. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Grennan, Wayne. 1997. Informal logic: Issues and approaches. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hastings, Arthur C. 1962. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University (Ph.D. dissertation).
Hitchcock, David. 1985. Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic, 7: 83–97.
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann Holzboog.
Mankiw, N. Gregory, Ronald D. Kneebone, Kenneth J. Mackenzie and Nicholas Rowe. 2006. Principles of Microeconomics. 3rd Canadian edition. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.
Schellens, Peter Jan. 1985. Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walton, Douglas N. 2002. The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation 16: 473–503.
Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Marcel. 2005. Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, John, and Douglas N. Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected papers 1972-1982. Dordrecht, Holland, and Providence, RI: Foris.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hitchcock, D. (2017). The Generation of Argument Schemes. In: On Reasoning and Argument. Argumentation Library, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53561-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53562-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)