Defining the Term "Argument"

Abstract

Informal logic has expanded the concept of an 'argument' beyond that presented traditionally by formal logicians-to include arguments as encountered in 'real-life'. Existent definitions of argument structure are argued to be inadequate by failing to fully recognise that, ultimately, arguments have a human source. Accordingly, a new definition is proposed which appeals to relevant cognitive and behavioural factors. THe definition retains some traditional concepts, but introduces the term 'supportive' as a modification to 'premiss'. The concept of a 'persuader' is also developed. The definition is argued to capture more fully the intricacies, subtleties and rich diversity of informal arguments.

Emergent correlative concessivity

“…Much clearer is the presence in our data of Azar's distinction between "direct-rejection concession" and "indirect-rejection concession" (1997), which in turn derives from the distinction between "persuasive arguments" and "supportive arguments" by Chittleborough and Newman (1993;cf. Rezat 2007, 76-81).…”

The Force of the Argument Source: The Partiality of the Source Influences the Evaluation of Political Arguments

“…We understand an argument as a statement that includes a claim and a justification for the claim. An argument is formulated to give support to the claim which is used either to establish a matter or to persuade others (Chittleborough and Newman 1993). Argument quality varies depending on the connection between the claim and its justification as well as on the content of the justification.…”