The Case of the Missing Premise

Levi, Don S.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1850-9_6

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the premises needed for the conclusion to follow can be missing, or rather be hidden (van Eemeren et al 2002;Hitchcock 2003;Groarke and Tindale 2004). Arguments are often enthymematic in nature, as they leave some of the premises on which they are based unexpressed (Braet 1999;Levi 1995). The reconstruction of this implicit link between premises and conclusion allows one to understand the reason or the principle supporting a specific view.…”

Section: An Instrument For Retrieving Implicit Premisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education

Konstantinidou

Macagno

2012

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".

show abstract

Section: An Instrument For Retrieving Implicit Premisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education

Konstantinidou

Macagno

2012

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the premises needed for the conclusion to follow can be missing, or rather be hidden (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoek Henkemans, 2002;Hitchcock, 2003, Groarke & Tindale, 2004. Arguments are often enthymematic in nature, as they leave some of the premises on which they are based unexpressed (Braet, 1999;Levi, 1995). The reconstruction of this implicit link between premises and conclusion allows one to understand the reason or the principle supporting a specific view.…”

Section: An Instrument For Retrieving Implicit Premisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education

Macagno

Konstantinidou

2012

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This distinction, between data and warrants, is similar to the distinction drawn in the law-courts between questions of fact and questions of law. Toulmin's (1958) conceptualization of the warrant as a globally accepted statement broadly connecting the claim to reason has often come under criticism (Grennan, 1994;Levi, 1995;Wolfe, Britt, & Butler, 2009). Hitchcock (2003) argues that "Toulmin equivocates on whether a warrant is a statement or a rule, often within the space of one or two pages" (p. 70).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Most Any Reason Is Better Than None: Consequences of Implausible Reasons and Warrants in Brief Written Arguments

Wolfe

Gao

et al. 2018

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation schema theory guided four experiments on the processing of plausible and implausible reasons and warrant statements testing the hypothesis that most reasons produce greater agreement with claims than when claims are presented without support. Another hypothesis was that leaving warrants unstated often produces greater agreement than when the warrant is made explicit. In Study 1, American participants were more likely to agree with claims after they read arguments than beforehand-even those with implausible reasons and warrants. In Study 2, American history and environmental science majors read brief arguments and agreed more with implausible arguments than claims alone. Study 3, with Chinese participants, replicated some but not all earlier results. In Study 4, with Chinese participants, blatantly false claims supported by bogus reasons yielded marginally greater agreement than unsupported claims. These findings suggest that many people have uncritical argumentation schemata with low support thresholds, making them vulnerable to weak and bogus arguments.

show abstract

The Case of the Missing Premise

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education

Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education

What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education

Most Any Reason Is Better Than None: Consequences of Implausible Reasons and Warrants in Brief Written Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About