types of argument in critical thinking

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python’s Flying Circus : 3

2.1 Identifying Arguments

People often use “argument” to refer to a dispute or quarrel between people. In critical thinking, an argument is defined as

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises.

There are three important things to remember here:

• Arguments contain statements.
• They have a conclusion.
• They have at least one premise

Arguments contain statements, or declarative sentences. Statements, unlike questions or commands, have a truth value. Statements assert that the world is a particular way; questions do not. For example, if someone asked you what you did after dinner yesterday evening, you wouldn’t accuse them of lying. When the world is the way that the statement says that it is, we say that the statement is true. If the statement is not true, it is false.

One of the statements in the argument is called the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is intended to be proved. Consider the following argument:

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I. Susan did well in Calculus I. So, Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Here the conclusion is that Susan should do well in Calculus II. The other two sentences are premises. Premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

2.1.1 Standard Form

Now, to make the argument easier to evaluate, we will put it into what is called “standard form.” To put an argument in standard form, write each premise on a separate, numbered line. Draw a line underneath the last premise, the write the conclusion underneath the line.

• Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I.
• Susan did well in Calculus I.
• Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Now that we have the argument in standard form, we can talk about premise 1, premise 2, and all clearly be referring to the same thing.

2.1.2 Indicator Words

Unfortunately, when people present arguments, they rarely put them in standard form. So, we have to decide which statement is intended to be the conclusion, and which are the premises. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the conclusion comes at the end. The conclusion is often at the beginning of the passage, but could even be in the middle. A better way to identify premises and conclusions is to look for indicator words. Indicator words are words that signal that statement following the indicator is a premise or conclusion. The example above used a common indicator word for a conclusion, ‘so.’ The other common conclusion indicator, as you can probably guess, is ‘therefore.’ This table lists the indicator words you might encounter.

Each argument will likely use only one indicator word or phrase. When the conlusion is at the end, it will generally be preceded by a conclusion indicator. Everything else, then, is a premise. When the conclusion comes at the beginning, the next sentence will usually be introduced by a premise indicator. All of the following sentences will also be premises.

For example, here’s our previous argument rewritten to use a premise indicator:

Susan should do well in Calculus II, because Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I, and Susan did well in Calculus I.

Sometimes, an argument will contain no indicator words at all. In that case, the best thing to do is to determine which of the premises would logically follow from the others. If there is one, then it is the conclusion. Here is an example:

Spot is a mammal. All dogs are mammals, and Spot is a dog.

The first sentence logically follows from the others, so it is the conclusion. When using this method, we are forced to assume that the person giving the argument is rational and logical, which might not be true.

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

One thing that complicates our task of identifying arguments is that there are many passages that, although they look like arguments, are not arguments. The most common types are:

• Explanations
• Mere asssertions
• Conditional statements
• Loosely connected statements

Explanations can be tricky, because they often use one of our indicator words. Consider this passage:

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

If this were an argument, then the conclusion would be that Abraham Lincoln died, since the other statement is introduced by a premise indicator. If this is an argument, though, it’s a strange one. Do you really think that someone would be trying to prove that Abraham Lincoln died? Surely everyone knows that he is dead. On the other hand, there might be people who don’t know how he died. This passage does not attempt to prove that something is true, but instead attempts to explain why it is true. To determine if a passage is an explanation or an argument, first find the statement that looks like the conclusion. Next, ask yourself if everyone likely already believes that statement to be true. If the answer to that question is yes, then the passage is an explanation.

Mere assertions are obviously not arguments. If a professor tells you simply that you will not get an A in her course this semester, she has not given you an argument. This is because she hasn’t given you any reasons to believe that the statement is true. If there are no premises, then there is no argument.

Conditional statements are sentences that have the form “If…, then….” A conditional statement asserts that if something is true, then something else would be true also. For example, imagine you are told, “If you have the winning lottery ticket, then you will win ten million dollars.” What is being claimed to be true, that you have the winning lottery ticket, or that you will win ten million dollars? Neither. The only thing claimed is the entire conditional. Conditionals can be premises, and they can be conclusions. They can be parts of arguments, but that cannot, on their own, be arguments themselves.

Finally, consider this passage:

I woke up this morning, then took a shower and got dressed. After breakfast, I worked on chapter 2 of the critical thinking text. I then took a break and drank some more coffee….

This might be a description of my day, but it’s not an argument. There’s nothing in the passage that plays the role of a premise or a conclusion. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Remember that arguments need a conclusion, there must be something that is the statement to be proved. Lacking that, it simply isn’t an argument, no matter how much it looks like one.

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine what kind of argument it is. We initially categorize arguments as either deductive or inductive, defined roughly in terms of their goals. In deductive arguments, the truth of the premises is intended to absolutely establish the truth of the conclusion. For inductive arguments, the truth of the premises is only intended to establish the probable truth of the conclusion. We’ll focus on deductive arguments first, then examine inductive arguments in later chapters.

Once we have established that an argument is deductive, we then ask if it is valid. To say that an argument is valid is to claim that there is a very special logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Another way to state this is

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

Note that claiming that an argument is valid is not the same as claiming that it has a true conclusion, nor is it to claim that the argument has true premises. Claiming that an argument is valid is claiming nothing more that the premises, if they were true , would be enough to make the conclusion true. For example, is the following argument valid or not?

• If pigs fly, then an increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.
• An increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.

The argument is indeed valid. If the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also. What about this argument?

• All dogs are mammals
• Spot is a mammal.
• Spot is a dog.

In this case, both of the premises are true and the conclusion is true. The question to ask, though, is whether the premises absolutely guarantee that the conclusion is true. The answer here is no. The two premises could be true and the conclusion false if Spot were a cat, whale, etc.

Neither of these arguments are good. The second fails because it is invalid. The two premises don’t prove that the conclusion is true. The first argument is valid, however. So, the premises would prove that the conclusion is true, if those premises were themselves true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I guess, considering what would be dropping from the sky) pigs don’t fly.

These examples give us two important ways that deductive arguments can fail. The can fail because they are invalid, or because they have at least one false premise. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, an argument can be both invalid and have a false premise.

If the argument is valid, and has all true premises, then it is a sound argument. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

Inductive arguments are never valid, since the premises only establish the probable truth of the conclusion. So, we evaluate inductive arguments according to their strength. A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises really do make the conclusion probably true. An argument is weak if the truth of the premises fail to establish the probable truth of the conclusion.

There is a significant difference between valid/invalid and strong/weak. If an argument is not valid, then it is invalid. The two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There can be no such thing as an argument being more valid than another valid argument. Validity is all or nothing. Inductive strength, however, is on a continuum. A strong inductive argument can be made stronger with the addition of another premise. More evidence can raise the probability of the conclusion. A valid argument cannot be made more valid with an additional premise. Why not? If the argument is valid, then the premises were enough to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Adding another premise won’t give any more guarantee of truth than was already there. If it could, then the guarantee wasn’t absolute before, and the original argument wasn’t valid in the first place.

2.3 Counterexamples

One way to prove an argument to be invalid is to use a counterexample. A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument above:

By pointing out that Spot could have been a cat, I have told a story in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Here’s another one:

• If it is raining, then the sidewalks are wet.
• The sidewalks are wet.
• It is raining.

The sprinklers might have been on. If so, then the sidewalks would be wet, even if it weren’t raining.

Counterexamples can be very useful for demonstrating invalidity. Keep in mind, though, that validity can never be proved with the counterexample method. If the argument is valid, then it will be impossible to give a counterexample to it. If you can’t come up with a counterexample, however, that does not prove the argument to be valid. It may only mean that you’re not creative enough.

• An argument is a set of statements; one is the conclusion, the rest are premises.
• The conclusion is the statement that the argument is trying to prove.
• The premises are the reasons offered for believing the conclusion to be true.
• Explanations, conditional sentences, and mere assertions are not arguments.
• Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
• Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true.
• In a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• In an invalid argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• A sound argument is valid and has all true premises.
• An inductively strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable.
• An inductively weak argument is one in which the truth of the premises do not make the conclusion probably true.
• A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false. Counterexamples can be used to prove that arguments are deductively invalid.

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Kinds of Arguments

Contemporary Western philosophy treats arguments as coming in two main types, deductive and inductive. The basic distinction and difference will be mentioned here.

Deductive arguments are arguments in which the premises (if true) guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion of a successful deductive argument cannot possibly be false, assuming its premises are true. This is what it means to label an argument as “valid” in logic. The form or structure of a deductive argument is the essential aspect to consider. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the premises do not need to be true for the conclusion to be true.

Arguments are a linguistic representation of an inference. So, using slightly different terminology, we can define deductive inferences . In a successful deductive inference, the premises and the denial of the conclusion constitute an inconsistent set of statements. An alternative way to describe the same relation: in a successful deductive inference, the truth of the premises makes the falsity of the conclusion logically impossible. A successful deductive inference is valid .

Deductive Example

1) All dogs are mammals.

2) All mammals breathe air.

_______________________________________________

SO: All dogs breathe air.

Inductive arguments are arguments with premises which make it likely that the conclusion is true but don’t absolutely guarantee its truth . Inductive arguments are by far the most common type of argument we see in our daily lives. We can assess inductive arguments along a spectrum of successful (stronger) to unsuccessful (weaker). The more successful (stronger) argument suggests that the premises mean the conclusion is probably true, with a high degree of likelihood. It is important to remember that inductive arguments can never fully guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Using slightly different terminology, we can consider inductive inferences, referring to the actual thinking process in someone’s mind. In a successful inductive inference, the truth of the premises makes the falsity of the conclusion possible, but unlikely. Inductive inferences can be evaluated as “stronger” or “weaker” depending on the probability.

Inductive Example

1) The Interstate Bridge is regularly inspected by qualified engineers.

2) Vehicles have been driving over it for years.

SO: It will be safe to drive over it tomorrow.

One thing that makes applying the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments a bit tricky is this: we can’t look only at the premises OR only at the conclusion. Instead, we need to focus on the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion to tell what kind of argument we have.

A further contributor to trickiness: we can’t be distracted by the question of whether the statements are true or false. To classify an argument as deductive or inductive, we need to grant that the premises are true in a hypothetical way. We have to ask the question, “If those premises were true, would it be IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false?” If so, it is a deductive argument. Or “If those premises were true, would it be UNLIKELY, but still possible, that the conclusion is false? If so, it is an inductive argument.

As an example, consider this valid deductive argument:

1) All clouds are made out of spun sugar.

2) Anything made out of spun sugar is high in calories.

SO: All clouds are high in calories.

This argument is deductively successful because the truth of the premises would make the falsity of the conclusion impossible. Odd, isn’t it?

Some arguments are presented with premises missing. In those cases, the determination of deductive or inductive will depend on how that premise is filled in.

For example: I had an apple for lunch, so I had something healthy!

Exercise: Deductive or Inductive?

Determine if the following arguments are deductive or inductive. It is a good idea to put the arguments in standard form first, so you are clear about the relation between premises and conclusion.

Critical Thinking in Academic Research Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Unit 1: What Is Philosophy?

LOGOS: Critical Thinking, Arguments, and Fallacies

Heather Wilburn, Ph.D

Critical Thinking:

With respect to critical thinking, it seems that everyone uses this phrase. Yet, there is a fear that this is becoming a buzz-word (i.e. a word or phrase you use because it’s popular or enticing in some way). Ultimately, this means that we may be using the phrase without a clear sense of what we even mean by it. So, here we are going to think about what this phrase might mean and look at some examples. As a former colleague of mine, Henry Imler, explains:

By critical thinking, we refer to thinking that is recursive in nature. Any time we encounter new information or new ideas, we double back and rethink our prior conclusions on the subject to see if any other conclusions are better suited. Critical thinking can be contrasted with Authoritarian thinking. This type of thinking seeks to preserve the original conclusion. Here, thinking and conclusions are policed, as to question the system is to threaten the system. And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision. [1]

A condition for being recursive is to be open and not arrogant. If we come to a point where we think we have a handle on what is True, we are no longer open to consider, discuss, or accept information that might challenge our Truth. One becomes closed off and rejects everything that is different or strange–out of sync with one’s own Truth. To be open and recursive entails a sense of thinking about your beliefs in a critical and reflective way, so that you have a chance to either strengthen your belief system or revise it if needed. I have been teaching philosophy and humanities classes for nearly 20 years; critical thinking is the single most important skill you can develop. In close but second place is communication, In my view, communication skills follow as a natural result of critical thinking because you are attempting to think through and articulate stronger and rationally justified views. At the risk of sounding cliche, education isn’t about instilling content; it is about learning how to think.

In your philosophy classes your own ideas and beliefs will very likely be challenged. This does not mean that you will be asked to abandon your beliefs, but it does mean that you might be asked to defend them. Additionally, your mind will probably be twisted and turned about, which can be an uncomfortable experience. Yet, if at all possible, you should cherish these experiences and allow them to help you grow as a thinker. To be challenged and perplexed is difficult; however, it is worthwhile because it compels deeper thinking and more significant levels of understanding. In turn, thinking itself can transform us not only in thought, but in our beliefs, and our actions. Hannah Arendt, a social and political philosopher that came to the United States in exile during WWII, relates the transformative elements of philosophical thinking to Socrates. She writes:

Socrates…who is commonly said to have believed in the teachability of virtue, seems to have held that talking and thinking about piety, justice, courage, and the rest were liable to make men more pious, more just, more courageous, even though they were not given definitions or “values” to direct their further conduct. [2]

Thinking and communication are transformative insofar as these activities have the potential to alter our perspectives and, thus, change our behavior. In fact, Arendt connects the ability to think critically and reflectively to morality. As she notes above, morality does not have to give a predetermined set of rules to affect our behavior. Instead, morality can also be related to the open and sometimes perplexing conversations we have with others (and ourselves) about moral issues and moral character traits. Theodor W. Adorno, another philosopher that came to the United States in exile during WWII, argues that autonomous thinking (i.e. thinking for oneself) is crucial if we want to prevent the occurrence of another event like Auschwitz, a concentration camp where over 1 million individuals died during the Holocaust. [3] To think autonomously entails reflective and critical thinking—a type of thinking rooted in philosophical activity and a type of thinking that questions and challenges social norms and the status quo. In this sense thinking is critical of what is, allowing us to think beyond what is and to think about what ought to be, or what ought not be. This is one of the transformative elements of philosophical activity and one that is useful in promoting justice and ethical living.

With respect to the meaning of education, the German philosopher Hegel uses the term bildung, which means education or upbringing, to indicate the differences between the traditional type of education that focuses on facts and memorization, and education as transformative. Allen Wood explains how Hegel uses the term bildung: it is “a process of self-transformation and an acquisition of the power to grasp and articulate the reasons for what one believes or knows.” [4] If we think back through all of our years of schooling, particularly those subject matters that involve the teacher passing on information that is to be memorized and repeated, most of us would be hard pressed to recall anything substantial. However, if the focus of education is on how to think and the development of skills include analyzing, synthesizing, and communicating ideas and problems, most of us will use those skills whether we are in the field of philosophy, politics, business, nursing, computer programming, or education. In this sense, philosophy can help you develop a strong foundational skill set that will be marketable for your individual paths. While philosophy is not the only subject that will foster these skills, its method is one that heavily focuses on the types of activities that will help you develop such skills.

Let’s turn to discuss arguments. Arguments consist of a set of statements, which are claims that something is or is not the case, or is either true or false. The conclusion of your argument is a statement that is being argued for, or the point of view being argued for. The other statements serve as evidence or support for your conclusion; we refer to these statements as premises. It’s important to keep in mind that a statement is either true or false, so questions, commands, or exclamations are not statements. If we are thinking critically we will not accept a statement as true or false without good reason(s), so our premises are important here. Keep in mind the idea that supporting statements are called premises and the statement that is being supported is called the conclusion. Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: Capital punishment is morally justifiable since it restores some sense of

balance to victims or victims’ families.

Let’s break it down so it’s easier to see in what we might call a typical argument form:

Premise: Capital punishment restores some sense of balance to victims or victims’ families.

Conclusion: Capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Example 2 : Because innocent people are sometimes found guilty and potentially

executed, capital punishment is not morally justifiable.

Premise: Innocent people are sometimes found guilty and potentially executed.

Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally justifiable.

It is worth noting the use of the terms “since” and “because” in these arguments. Terms or phrases like these often serve as signifiers that we are looking at evidence, or a premise.

Check out another example:

Example 3 : All human beings are mortal. Heather is a human being. Therefore,

Heather is mortal.

Premise 1: All human beings are mortal.

Premise 2: Heather is a human being.

Conclusion: Heather is mortal.

In this example, there are a couple of things worth noting: First, there can be more than one premise. In fact, you could have a rather complex argument with several premises. If you’ve written an argumentative paper you may have encountered arguments that are rather complex. Second, just as the arguments prior had signifiers to show that we are looking at evidence, this argument has a signifier (i.e. therefore) to demonstrate the argument’s conclusion.

So many arguments!!! Are they all equally good?

No, arguments are not equally good; there are many ways to make a faulty argument. In fact, there are a lot of different types of arguments and, to some extent, the type of argument can help us figure out if the argument is a good one. For a full elaboration of arguments, take a logic class! Here’s a brief version:

Deductive Arguments: in a deductive argument the conclusion necessarily follows the premises. Take argument Example 3 above. It is absolutely necessary that Heather is a mortal, if she is a human being and if mortality is a specific condition for being human. We know that all humans die, so that’s tight evidence. This argument would be a very good argument; it is valid (i.e the conclusion necessarily follows the premises) and it is sound (i.e. all the premises are true).

Inductive Arguments : in an inductive argument the conclusion likely (at best) follows the premises. Let’s have an example:

Example 4 : 98.9% of all TCC students like pizza. You are a TCC student. Thus, you like pizza.

Premise 1: 98.9% of all TCC students like pizza

Premise 2: You are a TCC student.

Conclusion: You like pizza. (*Thus is a conclusion indicator)

In this example, the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow; it likely follows. But you might be part of that 1.1% for whatever reason. Inductive arguments are good arguments if they are strong. So, instead of saying an inductive argument is valid, we say it is strong. You can also use the term sound to describe the truth of the premises, if they are true. Let’s suppose they are true and you absolutely love Hideaway pizza. Let’s also assume you are a TCC student. So, the argument is really strong and it is sound.

There are many types of inductive argument, including: causal arguments, arguments based on probabilities or statistics, arguments that are supported by analogies, and arguments that are based on some type of authority figure. So, when you encounter an argument based on one of these types, think about how strong the argument is. If you want to see examples of the different types, a web search (or a logic class!) will get you where you need to go.

Some arguments are faulty, not necessarily because of the truth or falsity of the premises, but because they rely on psychological and emotional ploys. These are bad arguments because people shouldn’t accept your conclusion if you are using scare tactics or distracting and manipulating reasoning. Arguments that have this issue are called fallacies. There are a lot of fallacies, so, again, if you want to know more a web search will be useful. We are going to look at several that seem to be the most relevant for our day-to-day experiences.

• Inappropriate Appeal to Authority : We are definitely going to use authority figures in our lives (e.g. doctors, lawyers, mechanics, financial advisors, etc.), but we need to make sure that the authority figure is a reliable one.

Things to look for here might include: reputation in the field, not holding widely controversial views, experience, education, and the like. So, if we take an authority figure’s word and they’re not legit, we’ve committed the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example 5 : I think I am going to take my investments to Voya. After all, Steven Adams advocates for Voya in an advertisement I recently saw.

If we look at the criteria for evaluating arguments that appeal to authority figures, it is pretty easy to see that Adams is not an expert in the finance field. Thus, this is an inappropropriate appeal to authority.

• Slippery Slope Arguments : Slippery slope arguments are found everywhere it seems. The essential characteristic of a slippery slope argument is that it uses problematic premises to argue that doing ‘x’ will ultimately lead to other actions that are extreme, unlikely, and disastrous. You can think of this type of argument as a faulty chain of events or domino effect type of argument.

Example 6 : If you don’t study for your philosophy exam you will not do well on the exam. This will lead to you failing the class. The next thing you know you will have lost your scholarship, dropped out of school, and will be living on the streets without any chance of getting a job.

While you should certainly study for your philosophy exam, if you don’t it is unlikely that this will lead to your full economic demise.

One challenge to evaluating slippery slope arguments is that they are predictions, so we cannot be certain about what will or will not actually happen. But this chain of events type of argument should be assessed in terms of whether the outcome will likely follow if action ‘x” is pursued.

• Faulty Analogy : We often make arguments based on analogy and these can be good arguments. But we often use faulty reasoning with analogies and this is what we want to learn how to avoid.

When evaluating an argument that is based on an analogy here are a few things to keep in mind: you want to look at the relevant similarities and the relevant differences between the things that are being compared. As a general rule, if there are more differences than similarities the argument is likely weak.

Example 7 : Alcohol is legal. Therefore, we should legalize marijuana too.

So, the first step here is to identify the two things being compared, which are alcohol and marijuana. Next, note relevant similarities and differences. These might include effects on health, community safety, economic factors, criminal justice factors, and the like.

This is probably not the best argument in support for marijuana legalization. It would seem that one could just as easily conclude that since marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be too. In fact, one might find that alcohol is an often abused and highly problematic drug for many people, so it is too risky to legalize marijuana if it is similar to alcohol.

• Appeal to Emotion : Arguments should be based on reason and evidence, not emotional tactics. When we use an emotional tactic, we are essentially trying to manipulate someone into accepting our position by evoking pity or fear, when our positions should actually be backed by reasonable and justifiable evidence.

Example 8 : Officer please don’t give me a speeding ticket. My girlfriend broke up with me last night, my alarm didn’t go off this morning, and I’m late for class.

While this is a really horrible start to one’s day, being broken up with and an alarm malfunctioning is not a justifiable reason for speeding.

Example 9 : Professor, I’d like you to remember that my mother is a dean here at TCC. I’m sure that she will be very disappointed if I don’t receive an A in your class.

This is a scare tactic and is not a good way to make an argument. Scare tactics can come in the form of psychological or physical threats; both forms are to be avoided.

• Appeal to Ignorance : This fallacy occurs when our argument relies on lack of evidence when evidence is actually needed to support a position.

Example 10 : No one has proven that sasquatch doesn’t exist; therefore it does exist.

Example 11 : No one has proven God exists; therefore God doesn’t exist.

The key here is that lack of evidence against something cannot be an argument for something. Lack of evidence can only show that we are ignorant of the facts.

• Straw Man : A straw man argument is a specific type of argument that is intended to weaken an opponent’s position so that it is easier to refute. So, we create a weaker version of the original argument (i.e. a straw man argument), so when we present it everyone will agree with us and denounce the original position.

Example 12 : Women are crazy arguing for equal treatment. No one wants women hanging around men’s locker rooms or saunas.

This is a misrepresentation of arguments for equal treatment. Women (and others arguing for equal treatment) are not trying to obtain equal access to men’s locker rooms or saunas.

The best way to avoid this fallacy is to make sure that you are not oversimplifying or misrepresenting others’ positions. Even if we don’t agree with a position, we want to make the strongest case against it and this can only be accomplished if we can refute the actual argument, not a weakened version of it. So, let’s all bring the strongest arguments we have to the table!

• Red Herring : A red herring is a distraction or a change in subject matter. Sometimes this is subtle, but if you find yourself feeling lost in the argument, take a close look and make sure there is not an attempt to distract you.

Example 13 : Can you believe that so many people are concerned with global warming? The real threat to our country is terrorism.

It could be the case that both global warming and terrorism are concerns for us. But the red herring fallacy is committed when someone tries to distract you from the argument at hand by bringing up another issue or side-stepping a question. Politicians are masters at this, by the way.

• Appeal to the Person : This fallacy is also referred to as the ad hominem fallacy. We commit this fallacy when we dismiss someone’s argument or position by attacking them instead of refuting the premises or support for their argument.

Example 14 : I am not going to listen to what Professor ‘X’ has to say about the history of religion. He told one of his previous classes he wasn’t religious.

The problem here is that the student is dismissing course material based on the professor’s religious views and not evaluating the course content on its own ground.

To avoid this fallacy, make sure that you target the argument or their claims and not the person making the argument in your rebuttal.

• Hasty Generalization : We make and use generalizations on a regular basis and in all types of decisions. We rely on generalizations when trying to decide which schools to apply to, which phone is the best for us, which neighborhood we want to live in, what type of job we want, and so on. Generalizations can be strong and reliable, but they can also be fallacious. There are three main ways in which a generalization can commit a fallacy: your sample size is too small, your sample size is not representative of the group you are making a generalization about, or your data could be outdated.

Example 15 : I had horrible customer service at the last Starbucks I was at. It is clear that Starbucks employees do not care about their customers. I will never visit another Starbucks again.

The problem with this generalization is that the claim made about all Starbucks is based on one experience. While it is tempting to not spend your money where people are rude to their customers, this is only one employee and presumably doesn’t reflect all employees or the company as a whole. So, to make this a stronger generalization we would want to have a larger sample size (multiple horrible experiences) to support the claim. Let’s look at a second hasty generalization:

Example 16 : I had horrible customer service at the Starbucks on 81st street. It is clear that Starbucks employees do not care about their customers. I will never visit another Starbucks again.

The problem with this generalization mirrors the previous problem in that the claim is based on only one experience. But there’s an additional issue here as well, which is that the claim is based off of an experience at one location. To make a claim about the whole company, our sample group needs to be larger than one and it needs to come from a variety of locations.

• Begging the Question : An argument begs the question when the argument’s premises assume the conclusion, instead of providing support for the conclusion. One common form of begging the question is referred to as circular reasoning.

Example 17 : Of course, everyone wants to see the new Marvel movie is because it is the most popular movie right now!

The conclusion here is that everyone wants to see the new Marvel movie, but the premise simply assumes that is the case by claiming it is the most popular movie. Remember the premise should give reasons for the conclusion, not merely assume it to be true.

• Equivocation : In the English language there are many words that have different meanings (e.g. bank, good, right, steal, etc.). When we use the same word but shift the meaning without explaining this move to your audience, we equivocate the word and this is a fallacy. So, if you must use the same word more than once and with more than one meaning you need to explain that you’re shifting the meaning you intend. Although, most of the time it is just easier to use a different word.

Example 18 : Yes, philosophy helps people argue better, but should we really encourage people to argue? There is enough hostility in the world.

Here, argue is used in two different senses. The meaning of the first refers to the philosophical meaning of argument (i.e. premises and a conclusion), whereas the second sense is in line with the common use of argument (i.e. yelling between two or more people, etc.).

• Henry Imler, ed., Phronesis An Ethics Primer with Readings, (2018). 7-8. ↵
• Arendt, Hannah, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” Social Research, 38:3 (1971: Autumn): 431. ↵
• Theodor W. Adorno, “Education After Auschwitz,” in Can One Live After Auschwitz, ed. by Rolf Tiedemann, trans. by Rodney Livingstone (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003): 23. ↵
• Allen W. Wood, “Hegel on Education,” in Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives, ed. Amelie O. Rorty (London: Routledge 1998): 302. ↵

LOGOS: Critical Thinking, Arguments, and Fallacies Copyright © 2020 by Heather Wilburn, Ph.D is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Arguing Using Critical Thinking

(2 reviews)

Jim Marteney, Los Angeles Valley College

Copyright Year: 2020

Publisher: Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Steve Gimbel, Professor, Gettysburg College on 9/29/22

There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning. In... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning. In terms of the breadth of topics one generally wants covered in a critical thinking class, the book does a fine job at hitting them all.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

It is an admirable attempt to develop a post-modern, post-truth approach to critical discourse. "Truth is a word best avoided entirely in argumentation," the book tells students, "except when placed in quotes or with careful qualification." Invoking Wittgenstein and Sapir-Whorf in the introductory sections, the book seeks to develop a relational, psychological, rhetorical approach instead of one focused on informal logic. In doing so, it entirely removes the point of argumentation -- rational belief. Some things are true -- smoking DOES cause cancer, human activity is causing global warming, the Founders of the U.S. did want a separation between Church and State. These are true. There is a series of TED talks cited for inspirational rhetorical value, but in a world in which conspiracy theories are endangering democracy, we need to understand that replacing truth with the truthiness that emerges from this sort of post-modernism is playing directly into those who are undermining our discourse. It exacerbates the problem, it does not solve it.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

Since the book hinges less on logic and more on social science, there are elements that will be altered over time. Sapir-Whorf, as mentioned above, has not taken seriously by linguists for decades, yet is used as a foundation. The book seeks to speak to students using, in places, contemporary references that will become dated over time, but these are easily updated.

Clarity rating: 1

There are some very good sections in the book. The distinction it draws between matters of fact, value, and policy is very well done. As is the catalogue it gives of different sorts of evidence. The clarity with which it sets out the difference in burdens between the pro and anti sides of a debate is wonderful.

In terms of accessibility, the book is written engagingly in a way that first year students should not be lost. It intentionally uses a new set of technical terms modeled on standard usage -- claim, evidence, issues, contentions, cases,... and does well to define them in accessible (at times loosey-goosey) ways.

However, there are problems for those trying to teach critical thinking as informal logic. You will not find the words "conclusion" or "premise" anywhere in the book. This is clearly intentional as it seeks to eliminate the idea of arguments as providing good reason to believe something is true. Again, truth is not to be discussed. Instead, it sort of tries to use a sort of sliding scale, but it is never at all clear what the scale is actually measuring. The book uses the term validity (much more on that below), but that term is used in a stunningly ambiguous way.

Consistency rating: 2

The central notion in the book is validity. This is not unexpected as that is a standard term in logic. As logicians use the word, an argument is valid if and only, assuming the truth of the premises for the sake of argument, the conclusion is at least likely true, that is, the truth of the conclusion is imp;lied by the truth of the premises. Validity is a matter relating to the internal structure of an argument, connecting the posited truth of the premises to the consequential necessary or probable truth of the conclusion. Yet the book says something quite different, "Critical thinkers need to remember that there is no necessary or inherent connection between Truth and validity." Ummmmm? Validity is DEFINED in terms of a relation between premises and conclusion and how that relation determines or does not determine truth. There could not be a MORE inherent connection between truth and validity.

It is clear that by "capital T Truth," the book is looking to encourage students not to be absolutists, to be able to question deeply held convictions and this is, indeed, a necessary function of any critical thinking class, but with its post-truth orientation, the book uses the term "validity" as a replacement for it in several completely different and inconsistent ways. At times, it is uses validity as a replacement for the truth concept. In this way, sentences are more or less valid, that is, truer or less true. This is the "sliding bead" model that is repeatedly alluded to throughout the text.

At other times, however, the usual meaning of validity is used, where it is not sentences, but arguments that can be valid or invalid according to whether or not the conclusion (claim) is properly connected to the premises (evidence). There is a loose, hand-waving section on what this sense of validity means. In most texts, this is the HEART of critical thinking. How to tell valid from invalid arguments.

At yet other times, there is a third use of the term validity. A viewpoint is more or less valid based upon the support it receives from arguments in favor of it. Unlike the traditional sense of validity, this is not a particular argument that is evaluated as successful in terms of its inner-structure, and it is not the likely truth or falsity of the conclusion of a particular argument, but a more general sense of the degree to which a perspective has arguments to bolster it.

This sort of slipperiness in the central notion of the entire course is problematic. The point of good reasoning is clarity and rigor. But that is exactly what this book tries to eliminate.

Modularity rating: 3

There are parts of this text that are fantastic and which I could absolutely see wanting to use in my critical thinking class. However, because of the intentional avoidance of standard logical terminology and the unusual reinterpretations of the standard terms it does use, it would be difficult to use sections of this book in conjunctions with sections of other critical thinking texts.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

If one were to use this text as the centerpiece of a course on critical thinking, there is a clear and logical flow to the way the pieces build on themselves. There is motivation up front, tools in the middle, applications and concerns about misusing the tools in the end. The structural is well-thought out and well-executed. The one complaint in terms of organization is that it is two-thirds the way through the text before certain central notions are defined.

Interface rating: 5

It is a clean and effective design with images that brighten up the text without distracting. Easy to read and aesthetically well-laid out. There are a couple of line breaks that add a couple of blank lines where they don't need to be here and there, but that is nitpicky stuff. Overall, it looks great.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

It is a clean and effective design with images that brighten up the text without distracting. Easy to read and aesthetically well-laid out. There are a couple of line breaks that add a couple of blank lines where they don't need to be here and there, but that is nitpicky stuff. Overall, it reads and looks great.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

The text is not culturally insensitive, indeed, the problem with it is exactly the opposite. It is clear that part of the goal of this text is to change how we think about critical thinking, moving from a logical model in which we strive for truth, to a rhetorical model in which we engage in open dialogue across varied perspectives. This is a noble goal. However, in trying to create discourse communities where voices that are often underrepresented or silenced have a place, the book does away with the point of that discourse. We want multiple perspectives because they provide insights that lead to truths we may have otherwise missed. They are correctives that undermine problematic presuppositions we did not even realize we were making that leads us away from truth. They allow us to see other ways of valuing things that we would not have values under our initial set of meanings. Eliminating the centrality of truth as a goal in discourse does not create room for other voices, it eliminates the point of needing those other voices. Indeed, the unintentional consequence of this approach to critical thinking is the devaluing of rationality, of truth, of scientific findings. We need to take action to reverse climate change. This can only be done if we have a robust notion of truth and its importance.

Logic is an activity you learn by doing. The lack of exercises or active engagement projects in the text is something that would place a load on the instructor to develop if this were to be an effective book in use.

Reviewed by Marion Hernandez, Adjunct Instructor English Department/DCE, Bunker Hill Community College on 12/27/20, updated 1/6/21

The book does name, identify and define key terms of argument and the basis for effective argument. read more

The book does name, identify and define key terms of argument and the basis for effective argument.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

This text has no grammatical errors and is unbiased in the definitions and the various contexts in which arguments occur.

Relevance and longevity do not really apply to the subject and context of this text. The book is very general and the time and place do not play a role.

Clarity rating: 2

The definitions and graphs/charts (only 2 or 3 have been added) are very basic, almost to the point of being counter productive. The Inductive and deductive chart has no value in the design or in the side notes accompanying the graph. No enough detail or design features were added to this one graph.

Consistency is not a feature to discuss because every chapter has a different main idea from types of arguments to resolving arguments to types of behavior commonly seen during arguments. There is no sequencing of material from beginning to end in term of moving from basic through intermediate and advanced level of thinking.

The book clearly defines the title of each section, but again, all taken together, no advancement in theory is developed throughout.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

The chapters do not appear in any type of order. The book moves from arguing to argument and behaviors commonly found during arguments. The last chapters talk about reasoning skills such as inductive and deductive thinking.

Interface rating: 1

The graphic and pictures do nothing to promote thinking or understanding and are therefore superfluous.

Grammatical Errors rating: 2

This critique here is not so much grammar but but point of view. The book really reads like a self help book or guide for a very basic reader. But the point of view shifts from 'you" as is what "you" should do to the the third person "they". This is very poor writing and leads to the next point which is its lack of value as a high school or college text. It is difficult to understand what student and in what circumstances would benefit or be inspired to read it.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

There is no politically incorrect content.

As briefly mentioned, the causal, offhand, self help nature of this book is not designed in any way to be used as a text. Because each chapter is separate with no sequencing, it would be impossible to develop any in depth assignments, No exercises are added so nothing would materialize in the way of theory, practice, analysis or discussion.

Table of Contents

• 1: Standing Up For Your Point Of View
• 2: Communicating An Argument
• 5: Building Your Case With Issues, Analysis And Contentions
• 6: Evidence
• 7: Reasoning
• 8: Validity Or Truth
• 9: Changing Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior
• 10: Decision Making - Judging an Argument
• 11: Discovering, Examining and Improving Our Reality
• 12: The Foundations of Critical Thinking

Ancillary Material

About the book.

There is a quote that has been passed down many years and is most recently accounted to P.T. Barnum, “There is a sucker born every minute.” Are you that sucker? If you were, would you like to be “reborn?” The goal of this book is to help you through that “birthing” process. Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas and making decisions are important in both your personal and professional life. How good are we at making the decision to marry? According to the Centers for Disease Control, there is one divorce in America every 36 seconds. That is nearly 2,400 every day. And professionally, the Wall Street Journal predicts the average person will have 7 careers in their lifetime. Critical thinking skills are crucial.

Critical thinking is a series learned skills. In each chapter of this book you will find a variety of skills that will help you improve your thinking and argumentative ability. As you improve, you will grow into a more confident person being more in charge of your world and the decisions you make.

About the Contributors

Jim Marteney , Professor Emeritus (Communication Studies) at Los Angeles Valley College

Contribute to this Page

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better by

Get full access to An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS

8.1 WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?

In ordinary usage, an argument is often taken to be a somewhat heated dispute between people. But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example:

It is raining.

So you should bring an umbrella.

In this argument, the first statement is the premise and the second one the conclusion. The premises of an argument are offered as reasons for accepting the conclusion. It is therefore irrational to accept an argument as a good one and yet refuse to accept the conclusion. Giving reasons is a central part of critical thinking. It is not the same as simply expressing an opinion. If you say “that dress looks nice,” you are only expressing an opinion. But if you say “that dress looks nice because the design is very elegant,” then it would be an argument indeed. Dogmatic people tend to make assertions without giving arguments. When they cannot defend themselves, they often resort to responses such as “this is a matter of opinion,” “this is just what you think,” or “I have the right to believe whatever I want.”

The ability to construct, identify, and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical thinking. Giving good arguments helps us convince other people, and improve our presentation and debating skills. More important, using arguments to support our beliefs with reasons is likely to help us discover the ...

Get An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5 Chapter 5: Types of Arguments

The types of arguments that college students will encounter can seem endless. Nearly everyone has a different way of categorizing arguments and their types. However, the basic argumentative types included here should be loose and general enough to give most students a sense of where to start with an assignment or writing project.

ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION

Agreeing on what terms even mean is one of the fundamental arguments in academic writing, and it is one of the more basic skills involved in critical thinking. Many conflicts exist because of disagreement on what ‘X’ even means. An important task of all academic writers is to define terms clearly and fairly. Sometimes, however, definitions need to be presented in a persuasive and compelling manner.

Overview:  Definitional arguments attempt to establish that the focus of discussion fits into a broader category (that ‘X is a type of Y’ is a typical phrasing of the argument). In order for a definitional argument to work, the writer must establish the traits that define the category—the criteria. For example, an argument that a national chain of coffee shops is a restaurant franchise might rely on a definition of restaurant that involves serving food.

Many times, the argument itself needs to focus on the definition. Not everyone will agree with all definitions, and so writers must argue for their definitions or accept those of their readers. Then, they will need to establish that the focus of the discussion meets the definition. Even an argument like “murder is morally wrong” will, largely, come down to the definitions of  murder  and  wrong .

Application:  Many college-level arguments hinge on definitions. Many times, college students need to practice explaining their criteria, because those criteria are not commonly assumed or shared. Therefore, they need to build common ground in the course of creating their arguments.

Consider an argument over the ethics of the death penalty. One student might be tempted to argue that the death penalty is or is not a deterrent to crime. The question now becomes ‘what do we mean by deterrent?’ Likewise, arguments over abstract concepts like fairness, justice, and truth all need concrete definitions in place in order to function.

What to Avoid:  Obviously, student writers need to avoid assuming that their definitions are universally accepted. On another level, student writers also need to be careful to apply  all  criteria and not just those that are convenient. For example, if a ‘passing’ student is a student who turns in all assignments on time, completes all of the required reading, attends all classes, and submits all required revisions, then a student who does almost all of those things but who fails to attend class does not meet the criteria for ‘passing,’ even though a majority of the traits are present.

ARGUMENTS OF FACT

At some point, most arguments come down to what is or is not true. Arguments of fact attempt to establish whether or not a specific ‘truth claim’ happens to be valid.

Overview:  An argument of fact is basically a claim about what is or is not the case in the real world. While some claims of fact take on meaning outside of this, few of them are academic arguments. Many times, claims of fact need to go beyond what can be directly observed; academic claims of fact deal with inference and conclusion—they tend to involve a lot of analysis of evidence.

In order to argue a claim of fact, the writer needs to have access both to evidence and to clear definitions of all of the terms that might be used in the argument. For example, an argument about the population of the United States would need to establish who is and who is not to be included in that number, as well as what forms of estimation and sampling are acceptable. After all, simply going around and counting people is not practical.

Most of the time, arguments of fact come down to matters of  ethos . In other words, we are more likely to accept the support given for fact claims if we trust the source of that support.

Application:  Even if the paper is not primarily about claims of fact, college writers need to remember that facts are up for discussion. Some directly observable phenomena (the color of the sky, the presence of chairs in a classroom) are functionally settled, but for most other issues, facts are debatable. It is the student writer’s responsibility to suggest why one version of the truth is preferable to another.

Note that the ability to debate facts does not mean that the facts themselves are malleable. The earth is not actually a flat plate with four corners, no matter how much some people might ‘argue’ that this is the case.

What to Avoid:  Student writers need to avoid making sweeping generalizations and assuming that these generalizations are true. Even if the underlying claim is valid, readers will often want to be able to read the evidence that validates the claim. Additionally, writers should also be careful when making claims of fact that they are not constructing a circular argument. For example, imagine a student argues that a claim is true because “Source A says it”, and the student then argues “Source A is right because Person B says it is never wrong”. Meanwhile, “Person B knows Source A is never wrong because xe read it in Source A.” This argument proves nothing, except that Person B really trusts Source A.

Additionally, student writers need to avoid the two most common ‘traps’ of academic fact claims. The first mistake is too assume that all facts are matters of opinion (remember, no amount of opinion will cause gravity to turn off, so be careful where you test your opinion that you can fly!). Another mistake is to argue clearly demonstrable facts with those that are unwilling to consider contradictory evidence. In virtually every discussion, there is a small portion of a potential audience that will not listen to any evidence that contradicts their own position. Such close-minded potential readers should be handled carefully, but should not be allowed to dictate the terms of the entire argument.

ARGUMENTS OF VALUE

While claims of fact are relatively straightforward, claims of value involve comparison and evaluation. Most claims of value come in the form of arguments like “X is better than Y” or “X is a good Y.” Claims of value are frequently the trickiest form of academic argument, because they often come down to issues that cannot be resolved factually.

Overview:  Value claims are statements about what should or should not be valued. As such, they require a level of justification beyond fact, making appeals to emotion (or  pathos ). For example, a claim such as ‘privacy is more important than security’ cannot appeal only to evidence, so it must instead deal with how readers react, emotionally, to the evidence. Many claims of value are based in a set of personally held criteria (e.g. I prefer salty food to sweet food, so potato chips are a better snack than a candy bar). As a consequence, arguments that involve value claims frequently must establish the facts first and then must add an additional step—arguing for how those facts should be weighed.

Values are almost always subjective, meaning that arguments over values need to reach out to the beliefs and opinions of the readers. Emotional appeals need to be presented in a way that is persuasive. Equally important, writers need to consider the beliefs that their readers are likely to hold on related issues.

Application:  Most college students will eventually find themselves writing a comparison paper of some kind. A political science class might require a comparison between two forms of government, a philosophy class could ask for students to decide between two systems of ethics, or an economics class might ask students to compare the merits of two possible investments.

However, comparison papers are simply one form of value claim. Many times, value claims are built into other, more complex arguments. In such circumstances, students must be ready to explain the reasons their audience should prefer one outcome or justification to another, even when the two both have advantages and disadvantages in the real world.

What to Avoid:  Try not to assume that others value the same things that you do. However, beyond this now-familiar advice, student writers need to avoid thinking that just because something comes down to emotion and belief that it cannot be argued at all. It is possible to change a reader’s mind on emotional issues; doing so simply requires patience and realistic goals.

ARGUMENTS OF POLICY

Claims of policy are arguments that urge action. Typically, a claim of policy ends up as a relatively straightforward proposition—“X should be done”, but a lot of different paths might need to be taken to reach that kind of conclusion.

Overview:  A basic policy claim is an argument that something should or should not be done. For example, arguing that marijuana should be legalized or that a friend should try a new food are both claims of policy. Because policy claims argue for an action, they imply a value claim—that taking the recommended action is better than  not taking it. This, in turn, means that claims of fact and definition become involved. Consequently, policy claims are some of the most complex arguments that exist.

Many academic policy arguments put forward a specific problem, and they then solve that problem with a course of action (i.e. you should do X because it makes Y better). Such arguments have an additional level of complexity, because they require that writers prove that the solution actually works.

Because policy arguments actually ask people to act in the real world, they frequently depend upon whether or not things ‘work’ in the same way that the author claims. In other words, they must make use of  logos  in order to demonstrate that they have validity.

Application:  College students frequently write policy arguments. Typically, a policy argument at the college level involves grappling with a single issue or justifying a single course of action. This argument must then be placed into a meaningful context. The student has to argue that the relative merits of the policy outweigh the relative costs.

It might be possible to reduce the problem of shoplifting rather dramatically, for example, if all shoplifters are simply executed. Are the merits of this approach worth the costs? The answer will vary from reader to reader, and a student’s essay on the subject would have to consider how readers will weigh the implications of such a policy.

Finally, policy arguments need to identify who has the power to take meaningful action in a situation. They must then make an argument that suggests why those with the power should, in fact, take the action.

What to Avoid:  One of the biggest reasons policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to distinguish between  doing something  and  doing something that matters . Students should avoid thinking that all solutions are created equal. Sometimes, a supposed solution actually just makes things worse (e.g. the fabled ‘I’ll help you deal with your stubbed toe by hitting you with a hammer – chances are you aren’t worried about the toe anymore, even if nothing is improved).

Another reason that policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to identify an entity (an agent) that could take the desired action. A simple, personal argument (eat less and exercise) at least attempts to convince individual readers to take action. However, an argument about lowering tuition or gas prices has no clear person or group who is supposed to do the lowering.

Writing Academic Arguments Copyright © by Joshua P. Sunderbruch. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Argument and Argumentation

Argument is a central concept for philosophy. Philosophers rely heavily on arguments to justify claims, and these practices have been motivating reflections on what arguments and argumentation are for millennia. Moreover, argumentative practices are also pervasive elsewhere; they permeate scientific inquiry, legal procedures, education, and political institutions. The study of argumentation is an inter-disciplinary field of inquiry, involving philosophers, language theorists, legal scholars, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and political scientists, among many others. This entry provides an overview of the literature on argumentation drawing primarily on philosophical sources, but also engaging extensively with relevant sources from other disciplines.

1. Terminological Clarifications

2.1 deduction, 2.2 induction, 2.3 abduction, 2.4 analogy, 2.5 fallacies, 3.1 adversarial and cooperative argumentation, 3.2 argumentation as an epistemic practice, 3.3 consensus-oriented argumentation, 3.4 argumentation and conflict management, 3.5 conclusion, 4.1 argumentation theory, 4.2 artificial intelligence and computer science, 4.3 cognitive science and psychology, 4.4 language and communication, 4.5 argumentation in specific social practices, 5.1 argumentative injustice and virtuous argumentation, 5.2 emotions and argumentation, 5.3 cross-cultural perspectives on argumentation, 5.4 argumentation and the internet, 6. conclusion, references for the main text, references for the historical supplement, other internet resources, related entries.

An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where some parts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, the conclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complex speech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assert propositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and a stated or implicit marker (“hence”, “therefore”) that indicates that the conclusion follows from the premises (Hitchcock 2007). [ 1 ] The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).

For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities. But depending on one’s explanatory goals, there is also much to be gained from considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices. The term generally used for instances of exchange of arguments is argumentation . In what follows, the convention of using “argument” to refer to structures of premises and conclusion, and “argumentation” to refer to human practices and activities where arguments occur as communicative actions will be adopted.

Argumentation can be defined as the communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in order to support claims or defend/challenge positions, especially in situations of doubt or disagreement (Lewiński & Mohammed 2016). It is arguably best conceived as a kind of dialogue , even if one can also “argue” with oneself, in long speeches or in writing (in articles or books) for an intended but silent audience, or in groups rather than in dyads (Lewiński & Aakhus 2014). But argumentation is a special kind of dialogue: indeed, most of the dialogues we engage in are not instances of argumentation, for example when asking someone if they know what time it is, or when someone shares details about their vacation. Argumentation only occurs when, upon making a claim, someone receives a request for further support for the claim in the form of reasons, or estimates herself that further justification is required (Jackson & Jacobs 1980; Jackson, 2019). In such cases, dialogues of “giving and asking for reasons” ensue (Brandom, 1994; Bermejo Luque 2011). Since most of what we know we learn from others, argumentation seems to be an important mechanism to filter the information we receive, instead of accepting what others tell us uncritically (Sperber, Clément, et al. 2010).

The study of arguments and argumentation is also closely connected to the study of reasoning , understood as the process of reaching conclusions on the basis of careful, reflective consideration of the available information, i.e., by an examination of reasons . According to a widespread view, reasoning and argumentation are related (as both concern reasons) but fundamentally different phenomena: reasoning would belong to the mental realm of thinking—an individual inferring new information from the available information by means of careful consideration of reasons—whereas argumentation would belong to the public realm of the exchange of reasons, expressed in language or other symbolic media and intended for an audience. However, a number of authors have argued for a different view, namely that reasoning and argumentation are in fact two sides of the same coin, and that what is known as reasoning is by and large the internalization of practices of argumentation (MacKenzie 1989; Mercier & Sperber 2017; Mercier 2018). For the purposes of this entry, we can assume a close connection between reasoning and argumentation so that relevant research on reasoning can be suitably included in the discussions to come.

2. Types of Arguments

Arguments come in many kinds. In some of them, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and these are known as deductive arguments. In others, the truth of the premises should make the truth of the conclusion more likely while not ensuring complete certainty; two well-known classes of such arguments are inductive and abductive arguments (a distinction introduced by Peirce, see entry on C.S. Peirce ). Unlike deduction, induction and abduction are thought to be ampliative: the conclusion goes beyond what is (logically) contained in the premises. Moreover, a type of argument that features prominently across different philosophical traditions, and yet does not fit neatly into any of the categories so far discussed, are analogical arguments. In this section, these four kinds of arguments are presented. The section closes with a discussion of fallacious arguments, that is, arguments that seem legitimate and “good”, but in fact are not. [ 2 ]

Valid deductive arguments are those where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion: the conclusion cannot but be true if the premises are true. Arguments having this property are said to be deductively valid . A valid argument whose premises are also true is said to be sound . Examples of valid deductive arguments are the familiar syllogisms, such as:

All humans are living beings. All living beings are mortal. Therefore, all humans are mortal.

In a deductively valid argument, the conclusion will be true in all situations where the premises are true, with no exceptions. A slightly more technical gloss of this idea goes as follows: in all possible worlds where the premises hold, the conclusion will also hold. This means that, if I know the premises of a deductively valid argument to be true of a given situation, then I can conclude with absolute certainty that the conclusion is also true of that situation. An important property typically associated with deductive arguments (but with exceptions, such as in relevant logic), and which differentiates them from inductive and abductive arguments, is the property of monotonicity : if premises A and B deductively imply conclusion C , then the addition of any arbitrary premise D will not invalidate the argument. In other words, if the argument “ A and B ; therefore C ” is deductively valid, then the argument “ A , B and D ; therefore C ” is equally deductively valid.

Deductive arguments are the objects of study of familiar logical systems such as (classical) propositional and predicate logic, as well as of subclassical systems such as intuitionistic and relevant logics (although in relevant logic the property of monotonicity does not hold, as it may lead to violations of criteria of relevance between premises and conclusion—see entry on relevance logic ). In each of these systems, the relation of logical consequence in question satisfies the property of necessary truth-preservation (see entry on logical consequence ). This is not surprising, as these systems were originally designed to capture arguments of a very specific kind, namely mathematical arguments (proofs), in the pioneering work of Frege, Russell, Hilbert, Gentzen, and others. Following a paradigm established in ancient Greek mathematics and famously captured in Euclid’s Elements , argumentative steps in mathematical proofs (in this tradition at least) must have the property of necessary truth preservation (Netz 1999). This paradigm remained influential for millennia, and still codifies what can be described as the “classical” conception of mathematical proof (Dutilh Novaes 2020a), even if practices of proof are ultimately also quite diverse. (In fact, there is much more to argumentation in mathematics than just deductive argumentation [Aberdein & Dove 2013].)

However, a number of philosophers have argued that deductive validity and necessary truth preservation in fact come apart. Some have reached this conclusion motivated by the familiar logical paradoxes such as the Liar or Curry’s paradox (Beall 2009; Field 2008; see entries on the Liar paradox and on Curry’s paradox ). Others have defended the idea that there are such things as contingent logical truths (Kaplan 1989; Nelson & Zalta 2012), which thus challenge the idea of necessary truth preservation. It has also been suggested that what is preserved in the transition from premises to conclusions in deductive arguments is in fact warrant or assertibility rather than truth (Restall 2004). Yet others, such as proponents of preservationist approaches to paraconsistent logic, posit that what is preserved by the deductive consequence relation is the coherence, or incoherence, of a set of premises (Schotch, Brown, & Jennings 2009; see entry on paraconsistent logic ). Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the view that deductive validity is to be understood primarily in terms of necessary truth preservation is still the received view.

Relatedly, there are a number of pressing philosophical issues pertaining to the justification of deduction, such as the exact nature of the necessity involved in deduction (metaphysical, logical, linguistic, epistemic; Shapiro 2005), and the possibility of offering a non-circular foundation for deduction (Dummett 1978). Furthermore, it is often remarked that the fact that a deductive argument is not ampliative may entail that it cannot be informative, which in turn would mean that its usefulness is quite limited; this problem has been described as “the scandal of deduction” (Sequoiah-Grayson 2008).

Be that as it may, deductive arguments have occupied a special place in philosophy and the sciences, ever since Aristotle presented the first fully-fledged theory of deductive argumentation and reasoning in the Prior Analytics (and the corresponding theory of scientific demonstration in the Posterior Analytics ; see Historical Supplement ). The fascination for deductive arguments is understandable, given their allure of certainty and indubitability. The more geometrico (a phrase introduced by Spinoza to describe the argumentative structure of his Ethics as following “a geometrical style”—see entry on Spinoza ) has been influential in many fields other than mathematics. However, the focus on deductive arguments at the expense of other types of arguments has arguably skewed investigations on argument and argumentation too much in one specific direction (see (Bermejo-Luque 2020) for a critique of deductivism in the study of argumentation).

In recent decades, the view that everyday reasoning and argumentation by and large do not follow the canons of deductive argumentation has been gaining traction. In psychology of reasoning, Oaksford and Chater were the first to argue already in the 1980s that human reasoning “in the wild” is essentially probabilistic, following the basic canons of Bayesian probabilities (Oaksford & Chater 2018; Elqayam 2018; see section 5.3 below). Computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers have also developed a strong interest in non-monotonic reasoning and argumentation (Reiter 1980), recognizing that, outside specific scientific contexts, human reasoning tends to be deeply defeasible (Pollock 1987; see entries on non-monotonic logic and defeasible reasoning ). Thus seen, deductive argumentation might be considered as the exception rather than the rule in human argumentative practices taken as a whole (Dutilh Novaes 2020a). But there are others, especially philosophers, who still maintain that the use of deductive reasoning and argumentation is widespread and extends beyond niches of specialists (Shapiro 2014; Williamson 2018).

Inductive arguments are arguments where observations about past instances and regularities lead to conclusions about future instances and general principles. For example, the observation that the sun has risen in the east every single day until now leads to the conclusion that it will rise in the east tomorrow, and to the general principle “the sun always rises in the east”. Generally speaking, inductive arguments are based on statistical frequencies, which then lead to generalizations beyond the sample of cases initially under consideration: from the observed to the unobserved. In a good, i.e., cogent , inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion. In contrast with a deductively valid argument, in an inductive argument the degree of support will never be maximal, as there is always the possibility of the conclusion being false given the truth of the premises. A gloss in terms of possible worlds might be that, while in a deductively valid argument the conclusion will hold in all possible worlds where the premises hold, in a good inductive argument the conclusion will hold in a significant proportion of the possible worlds where the premises hold. The proportion of such worlds may give a measure of the strength of support of the premises for the conclusion (see entry on inductive logic ).

Inductive arguments have been recognized and used in science and elsewhere for millennia. The concept of induction ( epagoge in Greek) was understood by Aristotle as a progression from particulars to a universal, and figured prominently both in his conception of the scientific method and in dialectical practices (see entry on Aristotle’s logic, section 3.1 ). However, a deductivist conception of the scientific method remained overall more influential in Aristotelian traditions, inspired by the theory of scientific demonstration of the Posterior Analytics . It is only with the so-called “scientific revolution” of the early modern period that experiments and observation of individual cases became one of the pillars of scientific methodology, a transition that is strongly associated with the figure of Francis Bacon (1561–1626; see entry on Francis Bacon ).

Inductive inferences/arguments are ubiquitous both in science and in everyday life, and for the most part quite reliable. The functioning of the world around us seems to display a fair amount of statistical regularity, and this is referred to as the “Uniformity Principle” in the literature on the problem of induction (to be discussed shortly). Moreover, it has been argued that generalizing from previously observed frequencies is the most basic principle of human cognition (Clark 2016).

However, it has long been recognized that inductive inferences/arguments are not unproblematic. Hume famously offered the first influential formulation of what became known as “the problem of induction” in his Treatise of Human Nature (see entries on David Hume and on the problem of induction ; Howson 2000). Hume raises the question of what grounds the correctness of inductive inferences/arguments, and posits that there must be an argument establishing the validity of the Uniformity Principle for inductive inferences to be truly justified. He goes on to argue that this argument cannot be deductive, as it is not inconceivable that the course of nature may change. But it cannot be probable either, as probable arguments already presuppose the validity of the Uniformity Principle; circularity would ensue. Since these are the only two options, he concludes that the Uniformity Principle cannot be established by rational argument, and hence that induction cannot be justified.

A more recent influential critique of inductive arguments is the one offered in (Harman 1965). Harman argues that either enumerative induction is not always warranted, or it is always warranted but constitutes an uninteresting special case of the more general category of inference to the best explanation (see next section). The upshot is that, for Harman, induction should not be considered a warranted form of inference in its own right.

Given the centrality of induction for scientific practice, there have been numerous attempts to respond to the critics of induction, with various degrees of success. Among those, an influential recent response to the problem of induction is Norton’s material theory of induction (Norton 2003). But the problem has not prevented scientists and laypeople alike from continuing to use induction widely. More recently, the use of statistical frequencies for social categories to draw conclusions about specific individuals has become a matter of contention, both at the individual level (see entry on implicit bias ) and at the institutional level (e.g., the use of predictive algorithms for law enforcement [Jorgensen Bolinger 2021]). These debates can be seen as reoccurrences of Hume’s problem of induction, now in the domain of social rather than of natural phenomena.

An abductive argument is one where, from the observation of a few relevant facts, a conclusion is drawn as to what could possibly explain the occurrence of these facts (see entry on abduction ). Abduction is widely thought to be ubiquitous both in science and in everyday life, as well as in other specific domains such as the law, medical diagnosis, and explainable artificial intelligence (Josephson & Josephson 1994). Indeed, a good example of abduction is the closing argument by a prosecutor in a court of law who, after summarizing the available evidence, concludes that the most plausible explanation for it is that the defendant must have committed the crime they are accused of.

Like induction, and unlike deduction, abduction is not necessarily truth-preserving: in the example above, it is still possible that the defendant is not guilty after all, and that some other, unexpected phenomena caused the evidence to emerge. But abduction is significantly different from induction in that it does not only concern the generalization of prior observation for prediction (though it may also involve statistical data): rather, abduction is often backward-looking in that it seeks to explain something that has already happened. The key notion is that of bringing together apparently independent phenomena or events as explanatorily and/or causally connected to each other, something that is absent from a purely inductive argument that only appeals to observed frequencies. Cognitively, abduction taps into the well-known human tendency to seek (causal) explanations for phenomena (Keil 2006).

As noted, deduction and induction have been recognized as important classes of arguments for millennia; the concept of abduction is by comparison a latecomer. It is important to notice though that explanatory arguments as such are not latecomers; indeed, Aristotle’s very conception of scientific demonstration is based on the concept of explaining causes (see entry on Aristotle ). What is recent is the conceptualization of abduction as a special class of arguments, and the term itself. The term was introduced by Peirce as a third class of inferences distinct from deduction and induction: for Peirce, abduction is understood as the process of forming explanatory hypotheses, thus leading to new ideas and concepts (whereas for him deduction and induction could not lead to new ideas or theories; see the entry on Peirce ). Thus seen, abduction pertains to contexts of discovery , in which case it is not clear that it corresponds to instances of arguments, properly speaking. In its modern meaning, however, abduction pertains to contexts of justification , and thus to speak of abductive arguments becomes appropriate. An abductive argument is now typically understood as an inference to the best explanation (Lipton 1971 [2003]), although some authors contend that there are good reasons to distinguish the two concepts (Campos 2011).

While the main ideas behind abduction may seem simple enough, cashing out more precisely how exactly abduction works is a complex matter (see entry on abduction ). Moreover, it is not clear that abductive arguments are always or even generally reliable and cogent. Humans seem to have a tendency to overshoot in their quest for causal explanations, and often look for simplicity where there is none to be found (Lombrozo 2007; but see Sober 2015 on the significance of parsimony in scientific reasoning). There are also a number of philosophical worries pertaining to the justification of abduction, especially in scientific contexts; one influential critique of abduction/inference to the best explanation is the one articulated by van Fraassen (Fraassen 1989). A frequent concern pertains to the connection between explanatory superiority and truth: are we entitled to conclude that the conclusion of an abductive argument is true solely on the basis of it being a good (or even the best) explanation for the phenomena in question? It seems that no amount of philosophical a priori theorizing will provide justification for the leap from explanatory superiority to truth. Instead, defenders of abduction tend to offer empirical arguments showing that abduction tends to be a reliable rule of inference. In this sense, abduction and induction are comparable: they are widely used, grounded in very basic human cognitive tendencies, but they give rise to a number of difficult philosophical problems.

Arguments by analogy are based on the idea that, if two things are similar, what is true of one of them is likely to be true of the other as well (see entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ). Analogical arguments are widely used across different domains of human activity, for example in legal contexts (see entry on precedent and analogy in legal reasoning ). As an example, take an argument for the wrongness of farming non-human animals for food consumption: if an alien species farmed humans for food, that would be wrong; so, by analogy, it is wrong for us humans to farm non-human animals for food. The general idea is captured in the following schema (adapted from the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ; S is the source domain and T the target domain of the analogy):

• S is similar to T in certain (known) respects.
• S has some further feature Q .
• Therefore, T also has the feature Q , or some feature Q * similar to Q .

The first premise establishes the analogy between two situations, objects, phenomena etc. The second premise states that the source domain has a given property. The conclusion is then that the target domain also has this property, or a suitable counterpart thereof. While informative, this schema does not differentiate between good and bad analogical arguments, and so does not offer much by way of explaining what grounds (good) analogical arguments. Indeed, contentious cases usually pertain to premise 1, and in particular to whether S and T are sufficiently similar in a way that is relevant for having or not having feature Q .

Analogical arguments are widely present in all known philosophical traditions, including three major ancient traditions: Greek, Chinese, and Indian (see Historical Supplement ). Analogies abound in ancient Greek philosophical texts, for example in Plato’s dialogues. In the Gorgias , for instance, the knack of rhetoric is compared to pastry-baking—seductive but ultimately unhealthy—whereas philosophy would correspond to medicine—potentially painful and unpleasant but good for the soul/body (Irani 2017). Aristotle discussed analogy extensively in the Prior Analytics and in the Topics (see section 3.2 of the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ). In ancient Chinese philosophy, analogy occupies a very prominent position; indeed, it is perhaps the main form of argumentation for Chinese thinkers. Mohist thinkers were particularly interested in analogical arguments (see entries on logic and language in early Chinese philosophy , Mohism and the Mohist canons ). In the Latin medieval tradition too analogy received sustained attention, in particular in the domains of logic, theology and metaphysics (see entry on medieval theories of analogy ).

Analogical arguments continue to occupy a central position in philosophical discussions, and a number of the most prominent philosophical arguments of the last decades are analogical arguments, e.g., Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument purportedly showing the permissibility of abortion (Thomson 1971), and Searle’s Chinese Room argument purportedly showing that computers cannot display real understanding (see entry on the Chinese Room argument ). (Notice that these two arguments are often described as thought experiments [see entry on thought experiments ], but thought experiments are often based on analogical principles when seeking to make a point that transcends the thought experiment as such.) The Achilles’ heel of analogical arguments can be illustrated by these two examples: both arguments have been criticized on the grounds that the purported similarity between the source and the target domains is not sufficient to extrapolate the property of the source domain (the permissibility of disconnecting from the violinist; the absence of understanding in the Chinese room) to the target domain (abortion; digital computers and artificial intelligence).

In sum, while analogical arguments in general perhaps confer a lesser degree of conviction than the other three kinds of arguments discussed, they are widely used both in professional circles and in everyday life. They have rightly attracted a fair amount of attention from scholars in different disciplines, and remain an important object of study (see entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ).

One of the most extensively studied types of arguments throughout the centuries are, perhaps surprisingly, arguments that appear legitimate but are not, known as fallacious arguments . From early on, the investigation of such arguments occupied a prominent position in Aristotelian logical traditions, inspired in particular by his book Sophistical Refutations (see Historical Supplement ). The thought is that, to argue well, it is not sufficient to be able to produce and recognize good arguments; it is equally (or perhaps even more) important to be able to recognize bad arguments by others, and to avoid producing bad arguments oneself. This is particularly true of the tricky cases, namely arguments that appear legitimate but are not, i.e., fallacies.

Some well-know types of fallacies include (see entry on fallacies for a more extensive discussion):

• The fallacy of equivocation, which occurs when an arguer exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an argument to draw an unwarranted conclusion.
• The fallacy of begging the question, when one of the premises and the conclusion of an argument are the same proposition, but differently formulated.
• The fallacy of appeal to authority, when a claim is supported by reference to an authority instead of offering reasons to support it.
• The ad hominem fallacy, which involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to argue against the view they are advancing.
• The fallacy of faulty analogy, when an analogy is used as an argument but there is not sufficient relevant similarity between the source domain and the target domain (as discussed above).

Beyond their (presumed?) usefulness in teaching argumentative skills, the literature on fallacies raises a number of important philosophical discussions, such as: What determines when an argument is fallacious or rather a legitimate argument? (See section 4.3 below on Bayesian accounts of fallacies) What causes certain arguments to be fallacious? Is the focus on fallacies a useful approach to arguments at all? (Massey 1981) Despite the occasional criticism, the concept of fallacies remains central in the study of arguments and argumentation.

3. Types of Argumentation

Just as there are different types of arguments, there are different types of argumentative situations, depending on the communicative goals of the persons involved and background conditions. Argumentation may occur when people are trying to reach consensus in a situation of dissent, but it may also occur when scientists discuss their findings with each other (to name but two examples). Specific rules of argumentative engagement may vary depending on these different types of argumentation.

A related point extensively discussed in the recent literature pertains to the function(s) of argumentation. [ 3 ] What’s the point of arguing? While it is often recognized that argumentation may have multiple functions, different authors tend to emphasize specific functions for argumentation at the expense of others. This section offers an overview of discussions on types of argumentation and its functions, demonstrating that argumentation is a multifaceted phenomenon that has different applications in different circumstances.

A question that has received much attention in the literature of the past decades pertains to whether the activity of argumentation is primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative. This question in fact corresponds to two sub-questions: the descriptive question of whether instances of argumentation are on the whole primarily adversarial or cooperative; and the normative question of whether argumentation should be (primarily) adversarial or cooperative. A number of authors have answered “adversarial” to the descriptive question and “cooperative” to the normative question, thus identifying a discrepancy between practices and normative ideals that must be remedied (or so they claim; Cohen 1995).

A case in point: recently, a number of far-right Internet personalities have advocated the idea that argumentation can be used to overpower one’s opponents, as described in the book The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization’s Last Stand (2017) by the white supremacist S. Molyneux. Such aggressive practices reflect a vision of argumentation as a kind of competition or battle, where the goal is to “score points” and “beat the opponent”. Authors who have criticized (overly) adversarial practices of argumentation include (Moulton 1983; Gilbert 1994; Rooney 2012; Hundleby 2013; Bailin & Battersby 2016). Many (but not all) of these authors formulated their criticism specifically from a feminist perspective (see entry on feminist perspectives on argumentation ).

Feminist critiques of adversarial argumentation challenge ideals of argumentation as a form of competition, where masculine-coded values of aggression and violence prevail (Kidd 2020). For these authors, such ideals encourage argumentative performances where excessive use of forcefulness is on display. Instances of aggressive argumentation in turn have a number of problematic consequences: epistemic consequences—the pursuit of truth is not best served by adversarial argumentation—as well as moral/ethical/political consequences—these practices exclude a number of people from participating in argumentative encounters, namely those for whom displays of aggression do not constitute socially acceptable behavior (women and other socially disadvantaged groups in particular). These authors defend alternative conceptions of argumentation as a cooperative, nurturing activity (Gilbert 1994; Bailin & Battersby 2016), which are traditionally feminine-coded values. Crucially, they view adversarial conceptions of argumentation as optional , maintaining that the alternatives are equally legitimate and that cooperative conceptions should be adopted and cultivated.

By contrast, others have argued that adversariality, when suitably understood, can be seen as an integral and in fact desirable component of argumentation (Govier 1999; Aikin 2011; Casey 2020; but notice that these authors each develop different accounts of adversariality in argumentation). Such authors answer “adversarial” both to the descriptive and to the normative questions stated above. One overall theme is the need to draw a distinction between (excessive) aggressiveness and adversariality as such. Govier, for example, distinguishes between ancillary (negative) adversariality and minimal adversariality (Govier 1999). The thought is that, while the feminist critique of excessive aggression in argumentation is well taken, adversariality conceived and practiced in different ways need not have the detrimental consequences of more extreme versions of belligerent argumentation. Moreover, for these authors, adversariality in argumentation is simply not optional: it is an intrinsic feature of argumentative practices, but these practices also require a background of cooperation and agreement regarding, e.g., the accepted rules of inference.

But ultimately, the presumed opposition between adversarial and cooperative conceptions of argumentation may well be merely apparent. It may be argued for example that actual argumentative encounters ought to be adversarial or cooperative to different degrees, as different types of argumentation are required for different situations (Dutilh Novaes forthcoming). Indeed, perhaps we should not look for a one-fits-all model of how argumentation ought to be conducted across different contexts and situation, given the diversity of uses of argumentation.

We speak of argumentation as an epistemic practice when we take its primary purpose to be that of improving our beliefs and increasing knowledge, or of fostering understanding. To engage in argumentation can be a way to acquire more accurate beliefs: by examining critically reasons for and against a given position, we would be able to weed out weaker, poorly justified beliefs (likely to be false) and end up with stronger, suitably justified beliefs (likely to be true). From this perspective, the goal of engaging in argumentation is to learn , i.e., to improve one’s epistemic position (as opposed to argumentation “to win” (Fisher & Keil 2016)). Indeed, argumentation is often said to be truth-conducive (Betz 2013).

The idea that argumentation can be an epistemically beneficial process is as old as philosophy itself. In every major historical philosophical tradition, argumentation is viewed as an essential component of philosophical reflection precisely because it may be used to aim at the truth (indeed this is the core of Plato’s critique of the Sophists and their excessive focus on persuasion at the expense of truth (Irani 2017; see Historical Supplement ). Recent proponents of an epistemological approach to argumentation include (Goldman 2004; Lumer 2005; Biro & Siegel 2006). Alvin Goldman captures this general idea in the following terms:

Norms of good argumentation are substantially dedicated to the promotion of truthful speech and the exposure of falsehood, whether intentional or unintentional. […] Norms of good argumentation are part of a practice to encourage the exchange of truths through sincere, non-negligent, and mutually corrective speech. (Goldman 1994: 30)

Of course, it is at least in theory possible to engage in argumentation with oneself along these lines, solitarily weighing the pros and cons of a position. But a number of philosophers, most notably John Stuart Mill, maintain that interpersonal argumentative situations, involving people who truly disagree with each other, work best to realize the epistemic potential of argumentation to improve our beliefs (a point he developed in On Liberty (1859; see entry on John Stuart Mill ). When our ideas are challenged by engagement with those who disagree with us, we are forced to consider our own beliefs more thoroughly and critically. The result is that the remaining beliefs, those that have survived critical challenge, will be better grounded than those we held before such encounters. Dissenters thus force us to stay epistemically alert instead of becoming too comfortable with existing, entrenched beliefs. On this conception, arguers cooperate with each other precisely by being adversarial, i.e., by adopting a critical stance towards the positions one disagrees with.

The view that argumentation aims at epistemic improvement is in many senses appealing, but it is doubtful that it reflects the actual outcomes of argumentation in many real-life situations. Indeed, it seems that, more often than not, we are not Millians when arguing: we do not tend to engage with dissenting opinions with an open mind. Indeed, there is quite some evidence suggesting that arguments are in fact not a very efficient means to change minds in most real-life situations (Gordon-Smith 2019). People typically do not like to change their minds about firmly entrenched beliefs, and so when confronted with arguments or evidence that contradict these beliefs, they tend to either look away or to discredit the source of the argument as unreliable (Dutilh Novaes 2020c)—a phenomenon also known as “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998).

In particular, arguments that threaten our core beliefs and our sense of belonging to a group (e.g., political beliefs) typically trigger all kinds of motivated reasoning (Taber & Lodge 2006; Kahan 2017) whereby one outright rejects those arguments without properly engaging with their content. Relatedly, when choosing among a vast supply of options, people tend to gravitate towards content and sources that confirm their existing opinions, thus giving rise to so-called “echo chambers” and “epistemic bubbles” (Nguyen 2020). Furthermore, some arguments can be deceptively convincing in that they look valid but are not (Tindale 2007; see entry on fallacies ). Because most of us are arguably not very good at spotting fallacious arguments, especially if they are arguments that lend support to the beliefs we already hold, engaging in argumentation may in fact decrease the accuracy of our beliefs by persuading us of false conclusions with incorrect arguments (Fantl 2018).

In sum, despite the optimism of Mill and many others, it seems that engaging in argumentation will not automatically improve our beliefs (even if this may occur in some circumstances). [ 4 ] However, it may still be argued that an epistemological approach to argumentation can serve the purpose of providing a normative ideal for argumentative practices, even if it is not always a descriptively accurate account of these practices in the messy real world. Moreover, at least some concrete instances of argumentation, in particular argumentation in science (see section 4.5 below) seem to offer successful examples of epistemic-oriented argumentative practices.

Another important strand in the literature on argumentation are theories that view consensus as the primary goal of argumentative processes: to eliminate or resolve a difference of (expressed) opinion. The tradition of pragma-dialectics is a prominent recent exponent of this strand (Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004). These consensus-oriented approaches are motivated by the social complexity of human life, and the attribution of a role of social coordination to argumentation. Because humans are social animals who must often cooperate with other humans to successfully accomplish certain tasks, they must have mechanisms to align their beliefs and intentions, and subsequently their actions (Tomasello 2014). The thought is that argumentation would be a particularly suitable mechanism for such alignment, as an exchange of reasons would make it more likely that differences of opinion would decrease (Norman 2016). This may happen precisely because argumentation would be a good way to track truths and avoid falsehoods, as discussed in the previous section; by being involved in the same epistemic process of exchanging reasons, the participants in an argumentative situation would all come to converge towards the truth, and thus the upshot would be that they also come to agree with each other. However, consensus-oriented views need not presuppose that argumentation is truth-conducive: the ultimate goal of such instances of argumentation is that of social coordination, and for this tracking truth is not a requirement (Patterson 2011).

In particular, the very notion of deliberative democracy is viewed as resting crucially on argumentative practices that aim for consensus (Fishkin 2016; see entry on democracy ). (For present purposes, “deliberation” and “argumentation” can be treated as roughly synonymous). In a deliberative democracy, for a decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic public deliberation—a discussion of the pros and cons of the different options—not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Moreover, in democratic deliberation, when full consensus does not emerge, the parties involved may opt for a compromise solution, e.g., a coalition-based political system.

A prominent theorist of deliberative democracy thus understood is Jürgen Habermas, whose “discourse theory of law and democracy” relies heavily on practices of political justification and argumentation taking place in what he calls “the public sphere” (Habermas 1992 [1996]; 1981 [1984]; see entry on Habermas ). He starts from the idea that politics allows for the collective organization of people’s lives, including the common rules they will live by. Political argumentation is a form of communicative practice, so general assumptions for communicative practices in general apply. However, additional assumptions apply as well (Olson 2011 [2014]). In particular, deliberating participants must accept that anyone can participate in these discursive practices (democratic deliberation should be inclusive), and that anyone can introduce and challenge claims that are made in the public sphere (democratic deliberation should be free). They must also see one another as having equal status, at least for the purposes of deliberation (democratic deliberation should be equal). In turn, critics of Habermas’s account view it as unrealistic, as it presupposes an ideal situation where all citizens are treated equally and engage in public debates in good faith (Mouffe 1999; Geuss 2019).

More generally, it seems that it is only under quite specific conditions that argumentation reliably leads to consensus (as also suggested by formal modeling of argumentative situations (Betz 2013; Olsson 2013; Mäs & Flache 2013)). Consensus-oriented argumentation seems to work well in cooperative contexts, but not so much in situations of conflict (Dutilh Novaes forthcoming). In particular, the discussing parties must already have a significant amount of background agreement—especially agreement on what counts as a legitimate argument or compelling evidence—for argumentation and deliberation to lead to consensus. Especially in situations of deep disagreement (Fogelin 1985), it seems that the potential of argumentation to lead to consensus is quite limited. Instead, in many real-life situations, argumentation often leads to the opposite result; people disagree with each other even more after engaging in argumentation (Sunstein 2002). This is the well-documented phenomenon of group polarization , which occurs when an initial position or tendency of individual members of a group becomes more extreme after group discussion (Isenberg 1986).

In fact, it may be argued that argumentation will often create or exacerbate conflict and adversariality, rather than leading to the resolution of differences of opinions. Furthermore, a focus on consensus may end up reinforcing and perpetuating existing unequal power relations in a society.

In an unjust society, what purports to be a cooperative exchange of reasons really perpetuates patterns of oppression. (Goodwin 2007: 77)

This general point has been made by a number of political thinkers (e.g., Young 2000), who have highlighted the exclusionary implications of consensus-oriented political deliberation. The upshot is that consensus may not only be an unrealistic goal for argumentation; it may not even be a desirable goal for argumentation in a number of situations (e.g., when there is great power imbalance). Despite these concerns, the view that the primary goal of argumentation is to aim for consensus remains influential in the literature.

Finally, a number of authors have attributed to argumentation the potential to manage (pre-existing) conflict. In a sense, the consensus-oriented view of argumentation just discussed is a special case of conflict management argumentation, based on the assumption that the best way to manage conflict and disagreement is to aim for consensus and thus eliminate conflict. But conflict can be managed in different ways, not all of them leading to consensus; indeed, some authors maintain that argumentation may help mitigate conflict even when the explicit aim is not that of reaching consensus. Importantly, authors who identify conflict management (or variations thereof) as a function for argumentation differ in their overall appreciation of the value of argumentation: some take it to be at best futile and at worst destructive, [ 5 ] while others attribute a more positive role to argumentation in conflict management.

To this category also belong the conceptualizations of argumentation-as-war discussed (and criticized) by a number of authors (Cohen 1995; Bailin & Battersby 2016); in such cases, conflict is not so much managed but rather enacted (and possibly exacerbated) by means of argumentation. Thus seen, the function of argumentation would not be fundamentally different from the function of organized competitive activities such as sports or even war (with suitable rules of engagement; Aikin 2011).

When conflict emerges, people have various options: they may choose not to engage and instead prefer to flee; they may go into full-blown fighting mode, which may include physical aggression; or they may opt for approaches somewhere in between the fight-or-flee extremes of the spectrum. Argumentation can be plausibly classified as an intermediary response:

[A]rgument literally is a form of pacifism—we are using words instead of swords to settle our disputes. With argument, we settle our disputes in ways that are most respectful of those who disagree—we do not buy them off, we do not threaten them, and we do not beat them into submission. Instead, we give them reasons that bear on the truth or falsity of their beliefs. However adversarial argument may be, it isn’t bombing. […] argument is a pacifistic replacement for truly violent solutions to disagreements…. (Aikin 2011: 256)

This is not to say that argumentation will always or even typically be the best approach to handle conflict and disagreement; the point is rather that argumentation at least has the potential to do so, provided that the background conditions are suitable and that provisions to mitigate escalation are in place (Aikin 2011). Versions of this view can be found in the work of proponents of agonistic conceptions of democracy and political deliberation (Wenman 2013; see entry on feminist political philosophy ). For agonist thinkers, conflict and strife are inevitable features of human lives, and so cannot be eliminated; but they can be managed. One of them is Chantal Mouffe (Mouffe 2000), for whom democratic practices, including argumentation/deliberation, can serve to contain hostility and transform it into more constructive forms of contest. However, it is far from obvious that argumentation by itself will suffice to manage conflict; typically, other kinds of intervention must be involved (Young 2000), as the risk of argumentation being used to exercise power rather than as a tool to manage conflict always looms large (van Laar & Krabbe 2019).

From these observations on different types of argumentation, a pluralistic picture emerges: argumentation, understood as the exchange of reasons to justify claims, seems to have different applications in different situations. However, it is not clear that some of the goals often attributed to argumentation such as epistemic improvement and reaching consensus can in fact be reliably achieved in many real life situations. Does this mean that argumentation is useless and futile? Not necessarily, but it may mean that engaging in argumentation will not always be the optimal response in a number of contexts.

4. Argumentation Across Fields of Inquiry and Social Practices

Argumentation is practiced and studied in many fields of inquiry; philosophers interested in argumentation have much to benefit from engaging with these bodies of research as well.

To understand the emergence of argumentation theory as a specific field of research in the twentieth century, a brief discussion of preceding events is necessary. In the nineteenth century, a number of textbooks aiming to improve everyday reasoning via public education emphasized logical and rhetorical concerns, such as those by Richard Whately (see entry on fallacies ). As noted in section 3.2 , John Stuart Mill also had a keen interest in argumentation and its role in public discourse (Mill 1859), as well as an interest in logic and reasoning (see entries on Mill and on fallacies ). But with the advent of mathematical logic in the final decades of the nineteenth century, logic and the study of ordinary, everyday argumentation came apart, as logicians such as Frege, Hilbert, Russell etc. were primarily interested in mathematical reasoning and argumentation. As a result, their logical systems are not particularly suitable to study everyday argumentation, as this is simply not what they were designed to do. [ 6 ]

Nevertheless, in the twentieth century a number of authors took inspiration from developments in formal logic and expanded the use of logical tools to the analysis of ordinary argumentation. A pioneer in this tradition is Susan Stebbing, who wrote what can be seen as the first textbook in analytic philosophy, and then went on to write a number of books aimed at a general audience addressing everyday and public discourse from a philosophical/logical perspective (see entry on Susan Stebbing ). Her 1939 book Thinking to Some Purpose , which can be considered as one of the first textbooks in critical thinking, was widely read at the time, but did not become particularly influential for the development of argumentation theory in the decades to follow.

By contrast, Stephen Toulmin’s 1958 book The Uses of Argument has been tremendously influential in a wide range of fields, including critical thinking education, rhetoric, speech communication, and computer science (perhaps even more so than in Toulmin’s own original field, philosophy). Toulmin’s aim was to criticize the assumption (widely held by Anglo-American philosophers at the time) that any significant argument can be formulated in purely formal, deductive terms, using the formal logical systems that had emerged in the preceding decades (see (Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 4). While this critique was met with much hostility among fellow philosophers, it eventually gave rise to an alternative way of approaching argumentation, which is often described as “informal logic” (see entry on informal logic ). This approach seeks to engage and analyze instances of argumentation in everyday life; it recognizes that, while useful, the tools of deductive logic alone do not suffice to investigate argumentation in all its complexity and pragmatic import. In a similar vein, Charles Hamblin’s 1970 book Fallacies reinvigorated the study of fallacies in the context of argumentation by re-emphasizing (following Aristotle) the importance of a dialectical-dialogical background when reflecting on fallacies in argumentation (see entry on fallacies ).

Around the same time as Toulmin, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca were developing an approach to argumentation that emphasized its persuasive component. To this end, they turned to classical theories of rhetoric, and adapted them to give rise to what they described as the “New Rhetoric”. Their book Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique was published in 1958 in French, and translated into English in 1969. Its key idea:

since argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958 [1969: 19])

They introduced the influential distinction between universal and particular audiences: while every argument is directed at a specific individual or group, the concept of a universal audience serves as a normative ideal encapsulating shared standards of agreement on what counts as legitimate argumentation (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 5).

The work of these pioneers provided the foundations for subsequent research in argumentation theory. One approach that became influential in the following decades is the pragma-dialectics tradition developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). They also founded the journal Argumentation , one of the flagship journals in argumentation theory. Pragma-dialectics was developed to study argumentation as a discourse activity, a complex speech act that occurs as part of interactional linguistic activities with specific communicative goals (“pragma” refers to the functional perspective of goals, and “dialectic” to the interactive component). For these authors, argumentative discourse is primarily directed at the reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion. Pragma-dialectics has a descriptive as well as a normative component, thus offering tools both for the analysis of concrete instances of argumentation and for the evaluation of argumentation correctness and success (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 10).

Another leading author in argumentation theory is Douglas Walton, who pioneered the argument schemes approach to argumentation that borrows tools from formal logic but expands them so as to treat a wider range of arguments than those covered by traditional logical systems (Walton, Reed, & Macagno 2008). Walton also formulated an influential account of argumentation in dialogue in collaboration with Erik Krabbe (Walton & Krabbe 1995). Ralph Johnson and Anthony Blair further helped to consolidate the field of argumentation theory and informal logic by founding the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric in Windsor (Ontario, Canada), and by initiating the journal Informal Logic . Their textbook Logical Self-Defense (Johnson & Blair 1977) has also been particularly influential.

The study of argumentation within computer science and artificial intelligence is a thriving field of research, with dedicated journals such as Argument and Computation and regular conference series such as COMMA (International Conference on Computational Models of Argument; see Rahwan & Simari 2009 and Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 11 for overviews).

The historical roots of argumentation research in artificial intelligence can be traced back to work on non-monotonic logics (see entry on non-monotonic logics ) and defeasible reasoning (see entry on defeasible reasoning ). Since then, three main different perspectives have emerged (Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 11): the theoretical systems perspective, where the focus is on theoretical and formal models of argumentation (following the tradition of philosophical and formal logic); the artificial systems perspective, where the aim is to build computer programs that model or support argumentative tasks, for instance, in online dialogue games or in expert systems; the natural systems perspective, which investigates argumentation in its natural form with the help of computational tools (e.g., argumentation mining [Peldszus & Stede 2013; Habernal & Gurevych 2017], where computational methods are used to identify argumentative structures in large corpora of texts).

An influential approach in this research tradition is that of abstract argumentation frameworks , initiated by the pioneering work of Dung (1995). Before that, argumentation in AI was studied mostly under the inspiration of concepts coming from informal logic such as argumentation schemes, context, stages of dialogues and argument moves. By contrast, the key notion in the framework proposed by Dung is that of argument attack , understood as an abstract formal relation roughly intended to capture the idea that it is possible to challenge an argument by means of another argument (assertions are understood as a special case of arguments with zero premises). Arguments can then be represented in networks of attacks and defenses: an argument A can attack an argument B , and B in turn may attack further arguments C and D (the connection with the notion of defeaters is a natural one, which Dung also addresses).

Besides abstract argumentation, three other important lines of research in AI are: the (internal) structure of arguments; argumentation in multi-agent systems; applications to specific tasks and domains (Rahwan & Siwari 2009). The structural approach investigates formally features such as argument strength/force (e.g., a conclusive argument is stronger than a defeasible argument), argument schemes (Bex, Prakken, Reed, & Walton 2003) etc. Argumentation in multi-agent systems is a thriving subfield with its own dedicated conference series (ArgMAS), based on the recognition that argumentation is a particularly suitable vehicle to facilitate interaction in the artificial environments studied by AI researchers working on multi-agent systems (see a special issue of the journal Argument & Computation [Atkinson, Cerutti, et al. 2016]). Finally, computational approaches in argumentation have also thrived with respect to specific domains and applications, such as legal argumentation (Prakken & Sartor 2015). Recently, as a reaction to the machine-learning paradigm, the idea of explainable AI has gotten traction, and the concept of argumentation is thought to play a fundamental role for explainable AI (Sklar & Azhar 2018).

Argumentation is also an important topic of investigation within cognitive science and psychology. Researchers in these fields are predominantly interested in the descriptive question of how people in fact engage in argumentation, rather than in the normative question of how they ought to do it (although some of them have also drawn normative conclusions, e.g., Hahn & Oaksford 2006; Hahn & Hornikx, 2016). Controlled experiments are one of the ways in which the descriptive question can be investigated.

Systematic research specifically on argumentation within cognitive science and psychology has significantly increased over the last 10 years. Before that, there had been extensive research on reasoning conceived as an individual, internal process, much of which had been conducted using task materials such as syllogistic arguments (Dutilh Novaes 2020b). But due to what may be described as an individualist bias in cognitive science and psychology (Mercier 2018), these researchers did not draw explicit connections between their findings and the public acts of “giving and asking for reasons”. It is only somewhat recently that argumentation began to receive sustained attention from these researchers. The investigations of Hugo Mercier and colleagues (Mercier & Sperber 2017; Mercier 2018) and of Ulrike Hahn and colleagues (Hahn & Oaksford 2007; Hornikx & Hahn 2012; Collins & Hahn 2018) have been particularly influential. (See also Paglieri, Bonelli, & Felletti 2016, an edited volume containing a representative overview of research on the psychology of argumentation.) Another interesting line of research has been the study of the development of reasoning and argumentative skills in young children (Köymen, Mammen, & Tomasello 2016; Köymen & Tomasello 2020).

Mercier and Sperber defend an interactionist account of reasoning, according to which the primary function of reasoning is for social interactions, where reasons are exchanged and receivers of reasons decide whether they find them convincing—in other words, for argumentation (Mercier & Sperber 2017). They review a wealth of evidence suggesting that reasoning is rather flawed when it comes to drawing conclusions from premises in order to expand one’s knowledge. From this they conclude, on the basis of evolutionary arguments, that the function of reasoning must be a different one, indeed one that responds to features of human sociality and the need to exercise epistemic vigilance when receiving information from others. This account has inaugurated a rich research program which they have been pursuing with colleagues for over a decade now, and which has delivered some interesting results—for example, that we seem to be better at evaluating the quality of arguments proposed by others than at formulating high-quality arguments ourselves (Mercier 2018).

In the context of the Bayesian (see entry on Bayes’ theorem ) approach to reasoning that was first developed by Mike Oaksford and Nick Chater in the 1980s (Oaksford & Chater 2018), Hahn and colleagues have extended the Bayesian framework to the investigation of argumentation. They claim that Bayesian probabilities offer an accurate descriptive model of how people evaluate the strength of arguments (Hahn & Oaksford 2007) as well as a solid perspective to address normative questions pertaining to argument strength (Hahn & Oaksford 2006; Hahn & Hornikx 2016). The Bayesian approach allows for the formulation of probabilistic measures of argument strength, showing that many so-called “fallacies” may nevertheless be good arguments in the sense that they considerably raise the probability of the conclusion. For example, deductively invalid argument schemes (such as affirming the consequent (AC) and denying the antecedent (DA)) can also provide considerable support for a conclusion, depending on the contents in question. The extent to which this is the case depends primarily on the specific informational context, captured by the prior probability distribution, not on the structure of the argument. This means that some instances of, say, AC, may offer support to a conclusion while others may fail to do so (Eva & Hartmann 2018). Thus seen, Bayesian argumentation represents a significantly different approach to argumentation from those inspired by logic (e.g., argument schemes), but they are not necessarily incompatible; they may well be complementary perspectives (see also [Zenker 2013]).

Argumentation is primarily (though not exclusively) a linguistic phenomenon. Accordingly, argumentation is extensively studied in fields dedicated to the study of language, such as rhetoric, linguistics, discourse analysis, communication, and pragmatics, among others (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: chs 8 and 9). Researchers in these areas develop general theoretical models of argumentation and investigate concrete instances of argumentation in specific domains on the basis of linguistic corpora, discourse analysis, and other methods used in the language sciences (see the edited volume Oswald, Herman, & Jacquin [2018] for a sample of the different lines of research). Overall, research on argumentation within the language sciences tends to focus primarily on concrete occurrences of arguments in a variety of domains, adopting a largely descriptive rather than normative perspective (though some of these researchers also tackle normative considerations).

Some of these analyses approach arguments and argumentation primarily as text or self-contained speeches, while others emphasize the interpersonal, communicative nature of “face-to-face” argumentation (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: section 8.9). One prominent approach in this tradition is due to communication scholars Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs. They have drawn on speech act theory and conversation analysis to investigate argumentation as a disagreement-relevant expansion of speech acts that, through mutually recognized reasons, allows us to manage disagreements despite the challenges they pose for communication and coordination of activities (Jackson & Jacobs 1980; Jackson 2019). Moreover, they perceive institutionalized practices of argumentation and concrete “argumentation designs”—such as for example randomized controlled trials in medicine—as interventions aimed at improving methods of disagreement management through argumentation.

Another communication scholar, Dale Hample, has further argued for the importance of approaching argumentation as an essentially interpersonal communicative activity (Hample 2006, 2018). This perspective allows for the consideration of a broader range of factors, not only the arguments themselves but also (and primarily) the people involved in those processes: their motivations, psychological processes, and emotions. It also allows for the formulation of questions pertaining to individual as well as cultural differences in argumentative styles (see section 5.3 below).

Another illuminating perspective views argumentative practices as inherently tied to broader socio-cultural contexts (Amossy 2009). The Journal of Argumentation in Context was founded in 2012 precisely to promote a contextual approach to argumentation. Once argumentation is no longer only considered in abstraction from concrete instances taking place in real-life situations, it becomes imperative to recognize that argumentation does not take place in a vacuum; typically, argumentative practices are embedded in other kinds of practices and institutions, against the background of specific socio-cultural, political structures. The method of discourse analysis is particularly suitable for a broader perspective on argumentation, as shown by the work of Ruth Amossy (2002) and Marianne Doury (2009), among others.

Argumentation is crucial in a number of specific organized social practices, in particular in politics, science, law, and education. The relevant argumentative practices are studied in each of the corresponding knowledge domains; indeed, while some general principles may govern argumentative practices across the board, some may be specific to particular applications and domains.

As already mentioned, argumentation is typically viewed as an essential component of political democratic practices, and as such it is of great interest to political scientists and political theorists (Habermas 1992 [1996]; Young 2000; Landemore 2013; Fishkin 2016; see entry on democracy ). (The term typically used in this context is “deliberation” instead of “argumentation”, but these can be viewed as roughly synonymous for our purposes.) General theories of argumentation such as pragma-dialectic and the Toulmin model can be applied to political argumentation with illuminating results (Wodak 2016; Mohammed 2016). More generally, political discourse seems to have a strong argumentative component, in particular if argumentation is understood more broadly as not only pertaining to rational discourse ( logos ) but as also including what rhetoricians refer to as pathos and ethos (Zarefsky 2014; Amossy 2018). But critics of argumentation and deliberation in political contexts also point out the limitations of the classical deliberative model (Sanders 1997; Talisse 2019).

Moreover, scientific communities seem to offer good examples of (largely) well-functioning argumentative practices. These are disciplined systems of collective epistemic activity, with tacit but widely endorsed norms for argumentative engagement for each domain (which does not mean that there are not disagreements on these very norms). The case of mathematics has already been mentioned above: practices of mathematical proof are quite naturally understood as argumentative practices (Dutilh Novaes 2020a). Furthermore, when a scientist presents a new scientific claim, it must be backed by arguments and evidence that her peers are likely to find convincing, as they follow from the application of widely agreed-upon scientific methods (Longino 1990; Weinstein 1990; Rehg 2008; see entry on the social dimensions of scientific knowledge ). Other scientists will in turn critically examine the evidence and arguments provided, and will voice objections or concerns if they find aspects of the theory to be insufficiently convincing. Thus seen, science may be viewed as a “game of giving and asking for reasons” (Zamora Bonilla 2006). Certain features of scientific argumentation seem to ensure its success: scientists see other scientists as prima facie peers, and so (typically at least) place a fair amount of trust in other scientists by default; science is based on the principle of “organized skepticism” (a term introduced by the pioneer sociologist of science Robert Merton [Merton, 1942]), which means that asking for further reasons should not be perceived as a personal attack. These are arguably aspects that distinguish argumentation in science from argumentation in other domains in virtue of these institutional factors (Mercier & Heintz 2014). But ultimately, scientists are part of society as a whole, and thus the question of how scientific and political argumentation intersect becomes particularly relevant (Kitcher 2001).

Another area where argumentation is essential is the law, which also corresponds to disciplined systems of collective activity with rules and principles for what counts as acceptable arguments and evidence. legal reasoning ).--> In litigation (in particular in adversarial justice systems), there are typically two sides disagreeing on what is lawful or just, and the basic idea is that each side will present its strongest arguments; it is the comparison between the two sets of arguments that should lead to the best judgment (Walton 2002). Legal reasoning and argumentation have been extensively studied within jurisprudence for decades, in particular since Ronald Dworkin’s (1977) and Neil MacCormick’s (1978) responses to HLA Hart’s highly influential The Concept of Law (1961). A number of other views and approaches have been developed, in particular from the perspectives of natural law theory, legal positivism, common law, and rhetoric (see Feteris 2017 for an overview). Overall, legal argumentation is characterized by extensive uses of analogies (Lamond 2014), abduction (Askeland 2020), and defeasible/non-monotonic reasoning (Bex & Verheij 2013). An interesting question is whether argumentation in law is fundamentally different from argumentation in other domains, or whether it follows the same overall canons and norms but applied to legal topics (Raz 2001).

Finally, the development of argumentative skills is arguably a fundamental aspect of (formal) education (Muller Mirza & Perret-Clermont 2009). Ideally, when presented with arguments, a learner should not simply accept what is being said at face value, but should instead reflect on the reasons offered and come to her own conclusions. Argumentation thus fosters independent, critical thinking, which is viewed as an important goal for education (Siegel 1995; see entry on critical thinking ). A number of education theorists and developmental psychologists have empirically investigated the effects of emphasizing argumentative skills in educational settings, with encouraging results (Kuhn & Crowell 2011). There has been in particular much emphasis on argumentation specifically in science education, based on the assumption that argumentation is a key component of scientific practice (as noted above); the thought is that this feature of scientific practice should be reflected in science education (Driver, Newton, & Osborne 2000; Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre 2007).

5. Further Topics

Argumentation is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and the literature on arguments and argumentation is massive and varied. This entry can only scratch the surface of the richness of this material, and many interesting, relevant topics must be left out for reasons of space. In this final section, a selection of topics that are likely to attract considerable interest in future research are discussed.

In recent years, the concept of epistemic injustice has received much attention among philosophers (Fricker 2007; McKinnon 2016). Epistemic injustice occurs when a person is unfairly treated qua knower on the basis of prejudices pertaining to social categories such as gender, race, class, ability etc. (see entry on feminist epistemology and philosophy of science ). One of the main categories of epistemic injustice discussed in the literature pertains to testimony and is known as testimonial injustice : this occurs when a testifier is not given a degree of credibility commensurate to their actual expertise on the relevant topic, as a result of prejudice. (Whether credibility excess is also a form of testimonial injustice is a moot point in the literature [Medina 2011].)

Since argumentation can be viewed as an important mechanism for sharing knowledge and information, i.e., as having significant epistemic import (Goldman 2004), the question arises whether there might be instances of epistemic injustice pertaining specifically to argumentation, which may be described as argumentative injustice , and which would be notably different from other recognized forms of epistemic injustice such as testimonial injustice. Bondy (Bondy 2010) presented a first articulation of the notion of argumentative injustice, modeled after Fricker’s notion of epistemic injustice and relying on a broadly epistemological conception of argumentation. However, Bondy’s analysis does not take into account some of the structural elements that have become central to the analysis of epistemic injustice since Fricker’s influential work, so it seems further discussion of epistemic injustice in argumentation is still needed. For example, in situations of disagreement, epistemic injustice can give rise to further obstacles to rational argumentation, leading to deep disagreement (Lagewaard 2021).

Moreover, as often noted by critics of adversarial approaches, argumentation can also be used as an instrument of domination and oppression used to overpower and denigrate an interlocutor (Nozick 1981), especially an interlocutor of “lower” status in the context in question (Moulton 1983; see entry on feminist approaches to argumentation ). From this perspective, it is clear that argumentation may also be used to reinforce and exacerbate injustice, inequalities and power differentials (Goodwin 2007). Given this possibility, and in response to the perennial risk of excessive aggressiveness in argumentative situations, a normative account of how argumentation ought to be conducted so as to avoid these problematic outcomes seem to be required.

One such approach is virtue argumentation theory . Drawing on virtue ethics and virtue epistemology (see entries on virtue ethics and virtue epistemology ), virtue argumentation theory seeks to theorize how to argue well in terms of the dispositions and character of arguers rather than, for example, in terms of properties of arguments considered in abstraction from arguers (Aberdein & Cohen 2016). Some of the argumentative virtues identified in the literature are: willingness to listen to others (Cohen 2019), willingness to take a novel viewpoint seriously (Kwong 2016), humility (Kidd 2016), and open-mindedness (Tanesini 2020).

By the same token, defective argumentation is conceptualized not (only) in terms of structural properties of arguments (e.g., fallacious argument patterns), but in terms of the vices displayed by arguers such as arrogance and narrow-mindedness, among others (Aberdein 2016). Virtue argumentation theory now constitutes a vibrant research program, as attested by a special issue of Topoi dedicated to the topic (see [Aberdein & Cohen 2016] for its Introduction). It allows for a reconceptualization of classical themes within argumentation theory while also promising to provide concrete recommendations on how to argue better. Whether it can fully counter the risk of epistemic injustice and oppressive uses of argumentation is however debatable, at least as long as broader structural factors related to power dynamics are not sufficiently taken into account (Kukla 2014).

On some idealized construals, argumentation is conceived as a purely rational, emotionless endeavor. But the strong connection between argumentative activities and emotional responses has also long been recognized (in particular in rhetorical analyses of argumentation), and more recently has become the object of extensive research (Walton 1992; Gilbert 2004; Hample 2006: ch. 5). Importantly, the recognition of a role for emotions in argumentation does not entail a complete rejection of the “rationality” of argumentation; rather, it is based on the rejection of a strict dichotomy between reason and emotion (see entry on emotion ), and on a more encompassing conception of argumentation as a multi-layered human activity.

Rather than dispassionate exchanges of reasons, instances of argumentation typically start against the background of existing emotional relations, and give rise to further affective responses—often, though not necessarily, negative responses of aggression and hostility. Indeed, it has been noted that, by itself, argumentation can give rise to conflict and friction where there was none to be found prior to the argumentative engagement (Aikin 2011). This occurs in particular because critical engagement and requests for reasons are at odds with default norms of credulity in most mundane dialogical interactions, thus creating a perception of antagonism. But argumentation may also give rise to positive affective responses if the focus is on coalescence and cooperation rather than on hostility (Gilbert 1997).

The descriptive claim that instances of argumentation are typically emotionally charged is not particularly controversial, though it deserves to be further investigated; the details of affective responses during instances of argumentation and how to deal with them are non-trivial (Krabbe & van Laar 2015). What is potentially more controversial is the normative claim that instances of argumentation may or should be emotionally charged, i.e., that emotions may or ought to be involved in argumentative processes, even if it may be necessary to regulate them in such situations rather than giving them free rein (González, Gómez, & Lemos 2019). The significance of emotions for persuasion has been recognized for millennia (see entry on Aristotle’s rhetoric ), but more recently it has become clear that emotions also have a fundamental role to play for choices of what to focus on and what to care about (Sinhababu 2017). This general point seems to apply to instances of argumentation as well. For example, Howes and Hundleby (Howes & Hundleby 2018) argue that, contrary to what is often thought, anger can in fact make a positive contribution to argumentative encounters. Indeed, anger may have an important epistemological role in such encounters by drawing attention to relevant premises and information that may otherwise go unnoticed. (They recognize that anger may also derail argumentation when the encounter becomes a full-on confrontation.)

In sum, the study of the role of emotions for argumentation, both descriptively and normatively speaking, has attracted the interest of a number of scholars, traditionally in connection with rhetoric and more recently also from the perspective of argumentation as interpersonal communication (Hample 2006). And yet, much work remains to be done on the significance of emotions for argumentation, in particular given that the view that argumentation should be a purely rational, dispassionate endeavor remains widely (even if tacitly) endorsed.

Once we adopt the perspective of argumentation as a communicative practice, the question of the influence of cultural factors on argumentative practices naturally arises. Is there significant variability in how people engage in argumentation depending on their sociocultural backgrounds? Or is argumentation largely the same phenomenon across different cultures? Actually, we may even ask ourselves whether argumentation in fact occurs in all human cultures, or whether it is the product of specific, contingent background conditions, thus not being a human universal. For comparison: it had long been assumed that practices of counting were present in all human cultures, even if with different degrees of complexity. But in recent decades it has been shown that some cultures do not engage systematically in practices of counting and basic arithmetic at all, such as the Pirahã in the Amazon (Gordon 2004; see entry on culture and cognitive science ). By analogy, it seems that the purported universality of argumentative practices should not be taken for granted, but rather be treated as a legitimate empirical question. (Incidentally, there is some anecdotal evidence that the Pirahã themselves engage in argumentative exchanges [Everett 2008], but to date their argumentative skills have not been investigated systematically, as is the case with their numerical skills.)

Of course, how widespread argumentative practices will be also depends on how the concept of “argumentative practices” is defined and operationalized in the first place. If it is narrowly defined as corresponding to regimented practices of reason-giving requiring clear markers and explicit criteria for what counts as premises, conclusions and relations of support between them, then argumentation may well be restricted to cultures and subcultures where such practices have been explicitly codified. By contrast, if argumentation is defined more loosely, then a wider range of communicative practices will be considered as instances of argumentation, and thus presumably more cultures will be found to engage in (what is thus viewed as) argumentation. This means that the spread of argumentative practices across cultures is not only an empirical question; it also requires significant conceptual input to be addressed.

But if (as appears to be the case) argumentation is not a strictly WEIRD phenomenon, restricted to Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan 2010), then the issue of cross-cultural variability in argumentative practices gives rise to a host of research questions, again both at the descriptive and at the normative level. Indeed, even if at the descriptive level considerable variability in argumentative practices is identified, the normative question of whether there should be universally valid canons for argumentation, or instead specific norms for specific contexts, remains pressing. At the descriptive level, a number of researchers have investigated argumentative practices in different WEIRD as well as non-WEIRD cultures, also addressing questions of cultural variability (Hornikx & Hoeken 2007; Hornikx & de Best 2011).

A foundational work in this context is Edwin Hutchins’ 1980 book Culture and Inference , a study of the Trobriand Islanders’ system of land tenure in Papua New Guinea (Hutchins 1980). While presented as a study of inference and reasoning among the Trobriand Islanders, what Hutchins in fact investigated were instances of legal argumentation in land courts by means of ethnographic observation and interviews with litigants. This led to the formulation of a set of twelve basic propositions codifying knowledge about land tenure, as well as transfer formulas governing how this knowledge can be applied to new disputes. Hutchins’ analysis showed that the Trobriand Islanders had a sophisticated argumentation system to resolve issues pertaining to land tenure, in many senses resembling argumentation and reasoning in so-called WEIRD societies in that it seemed to recognize as valid simple logical structures such as modus ponens and modus tollens .

More recently, Hugo Mercier and colleagues have been conducting studies in countries such as Japan (Mercier, Deguchi, Van der Henst, & Yama 2016) and Guatemala (Castelain, Girotto, Jamet, & Mercier 2016). While recognizing the significance and interest of cultural differences (Mercier 2013), Mercier maintains that argumentation is a human universal, as argumentative capacities and tendencies are a result of natural selection, genetically encoded in human cognition (Mercier 2011; Mercier & Sperber 2017). He takes the results of the cross-cultural studies conducted so far as confirming the universality of argumentation, even considering cultural differences (Mercier 2018).

Another scholar who has been carrying out an extensive research program on cultural differences in argumentation is communication theorist Dale Hample. With different sets of colleagues, he has conducted studies by means of surveys where participants (typically, university undergraduates) self-report on their argumentative practices in countries such as China, Japan, Turkey, Chile, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United States (among others; Hample 2018: ch. 7). His results overall show a number of similarities, which may be partially explained by the specific demographic (university students) from which participants are usually recruited. But interesting differences have also been identified, for example different levels of willingness to engage in argumentative encounters.

In a recent book (Tindale 2021), philosopher Chris Tindale adopts an anthropological perspective to investigate how argumentative practices emerge from the experiences of peoples with diverse backgrounds. He emphasizes the argumentative roles of place, orality, myth, narrative, and audience, also assessing the impacts of colonialism on the study of argumentation. Tindale reviews a wealth of anthropological and ethnographic studies on argumentative practices in different cultures, thus providing what is to date perhaps the most comprehensive study on argumentation from an anthropological perspective.

On the whole, the study of differences and commonalities in argumentative practices across cultures is an established line of research on argumentation, but arguably much work remains to be done to investigate these complex phenomena more thoroughly.

So far we have not yet considered the question of the different media through which argumentation can take place. Naturally, argumentation can unfold orally in face-to-face encounters—discussions in parliament, political debates, in a court of law—as well as in writing—in scientific articles, on the Internet, in newspaper editorials. Moreover, it can happen synchronically, with real-time exchanges of reasons, or asynchronically. While it is reasonable to expect that there will be some commonalities across these different media and environments, it is also plausible that specific features of different environments may significantly influence how argumentation is conducted: different environments present different kinds of affordances for arguers (Halpern & Gibbs 2013; Weger & Aakhus 2003; see entry on embodied cognition for the concept of affordance). Indeed, if the Internet represents a fundamentally novel cognitive ecology (Smart, Heersmink, & Clowes 2017), then it will likely give rise to different forms of argumentative engagement (Lewiński 2010). Whether these new forms will represent progress (according to some suitable metric) is however a moot point.

In the early days of the Internet in the 1990s, there was much hope that online spaces would finally realize the Habermasian ideal of a public sphere for political deliberation (Hindman 2009). The Internet was supposed to act as the great equalizer in the worldwide marketplace of ideas, finally attaining the Millian ideal of free exchange of ideas (Mill 1859). Online, everyone’s voice would have an equal chance of being heard, everyone could contribute to the conversation, and everyone could simultaneously be a journalist, news consumer, engaged citizen, advocate, and activist.

A few decades later, these hopes have not really materialized. It is probably true that most people now argue more —in social media, blogs, chat rooms, discussion boards etc.—but it is much less obvious that they argue better . Indeed, rather than enhancing democratic ideals, some have gone as far as claiming that instead, the Internet is “killing democracy” (Bartlett 2018). There is very little oversight when it comes to the spreading of propaganda and disinformation online (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts 2018), which means that citizens are often being fed faulty information and arguments. Moreover, it seems that online environments may lead to increased polarization when polemic topics are being discussed (Yardi & Boyd 2010), and to “intellectual arrogance” (Lynch 2019). Some have argued that online discussions lead to more overly emotional engagement when compared to other forms of debate (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock 2014). But not everyone is convinced that the Internet has only made things worse when it comes to argumentation, or in any case that it cannot be suitably redesigned so as to foster rather than destroy democratic ideals and deliberation (Sunstein 2017).

Be that as it may, the Internet is here to stay, and online argumentation is a pervasive phenomenon that argumentation theorists have been studying and will continue to study for years to come. In fact, if anything, online argumentation is now more often investigated empirically than other forms of argumentation, among other reasons thanks to the development of argument mining techniques (see section 4.2 above) which greatly facilitate the study of large corpora of textual material such as those produced by online discussions. Beyond the very numerous specific case studies available in the literature, there have been also attempts to reflect on the phenomenon of online argumentation in general, for example in journal special issues dedicated to argumentation in digital media such as in Argumentation and Advocacy (Volume 47(2), 2010) and Philosophy & Technology (Volume 30(2), 2017). However, a systematic analysis of online argumentation and how it differs from other forms of argumentation remains to be produced.

Argument and argumentation are multifaceted phenomena that have attracted the interest of philosophers as well as scholars in other fields for millennia, and continue to be studied extensively in various domains. This entry presents an overview of the main strands in these discussions, while acknowledging the impossibility of fully doing justice to the enormous literature on the topic. But the literature references below should at least provide a useful starting point for the interested reader.

• Aberdein, Andrew, 2016, “The Vices of Argument”, Topoi , 35(2): 413–422. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9346-z
• Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen, 2016, “Introduction: Virtues and Arguments”, Topoi , 35(2): 339–343. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9366-3
• Aberdein, Andrew and Ian J Dove (eds.), 2013, The Argument of Mathematics , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4
• Aikin, Scott, 2011, “A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument”, Philosophy & Rhetoric , 44(3): 250–272.
• Amossy, Ruth, 2002, “How to Do Things with Doxa: Toward an Analysis of Argumentation in Discourse”, Poetics Today , 23(3): 465–487. doi:10.1215/03335372-23-3-465
• –––, 2009, “Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments”, Informal Logic , 29(3): 252–267. doi:10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
• –––, 2018, “Understanding Political Issues through Argumentation Analysis”, in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics , Ruth Wodak and Bernard Forchtner (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 135–149.
• Askeland, Bjarte, 2020, “The Potential of Abductive Legal Reasoning”, Ratio Juris , 33(1): 66–81. doi:10.1111/raju.12268
• Atkinson, Katie, Federico Cerutti, Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons, and Iyad Rahwan (eds), 2016, Special Issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , of Argument & Computation , 7(2–3).
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2016, “DAMed If You Do; DAMed If You Don’t: Cohen’s ‘Missed Opportunities’”, in Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference , Vol. 11. [ Bailin and Battersby 2016 available online ]
• Ball, Linden J and Valerie A. Thompson (eds.), 2018, International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315725697
• Bartlett, Jamie, 2018, The People vs Tech: How the Internet is Killing Democracy (and How We Can Save It) , London: Ebury Press.
• Beall, Jc, 2009, Spandrels of Truth , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268733.001.0001
• Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, 2018, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001
• Bermejo Luque, Lilian, 2011, Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory (Argumentation Library 20), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1761-9
• –––, 2020, “What Is Wrong with Deductivism?”, Informal Logic , 40(3): 295–316. doi:10.22329/il.v40i30.6214
• Betz, Gregor, 2013, Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5
• Bex, Floris, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, and Douglas Walton, 2003, “Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations”, Artificial Intelligence and Law , 11(2/3): 125–165. doi:10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
• Bex, Floris and Bart Verheij, 2013, “Legal Stories and the Process of Proof”, Artificial Intelligence and Law , 21(3): 253–278. doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9137-4
• Biro, John and Harvey Siegel, 2006, “In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 26(1): 91–101. doi:10.22329/il.v26i1.432
• Bondy, Patrick, 2010, “Argumentative Injustice”, Informal Logic , 30(3): 263–278. doi:10.22329/il.v30i3.3034
• Brandom, Robert B., 1994, Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Campos, Daniel G., 2011, “On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation”, Synthese , 180(3): 419–442. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3
• Casey, John, 2020, “Adversariality and Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 40(1): 77–108. doi:10.22329/il.v40i1.5969
• Castelain, Thomas, Vittorio Girotto, Frank Jamet, and Hugo Mercier, 2016, “Evidence for Benefits of Argumentation in a Mayan Indigenous Population”, Evolution and Human Behavior , 37(5): 337–342. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.02.002
• Clark, Andy, 2016, Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001
• Cohen, Daniel H., 1995, “Argument Is War…and War Is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 17(2): 177–188. doi:10.22329/il.v17i2.2406
• –––, 2019, “Argumentative Virtues as Conduits for Reason’s Causal Efficacy: Why the Practice of Giving Reasons Requires That We Practice Hearing Reasons”, Topoi , 38(4): 711–718. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9364-x
• Collins, Peter J. and Ulrike Hahn, 2018, “Fallacies of Argumentation”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 88–108.
• Doury, Marianne, 2009, “Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The Case of Comparative Arguments”, in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation , Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (eds.), (Argumentation Library 14), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 141–155. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_11
• Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne, 2000, “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”, Science Education , 84(3): 287–312.
• Dummett, Michael, 1978, “The Justification of Deduction”, in his Truth and Other Enigmas , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 290–318.
• Dung, Phan Minh, 1995, “On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n -Person Games”, Artificial Intelligence , 77(2): 321–357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
• Dutilh Novaes, Catarina, 2015, “The Formal and the Formalized: The Cases of Syllogistic and Supposition Theory”, Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia , 56(131): 253–270. doi:10.1590/0100-512X2015n13114cdn
• –––, 2020a, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108800792
• –––, 2020b, “Logic and the Psychology of Reasoning”, in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism , Martin Kusch (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 445–454.
• –––, 2020c, “The Role of Trust in Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 40(2): 205–236. doi:10.22329/il.v40i2.6328
• –––, forthcoming, “Who’s Afraid of Adversariality? Conflict and Cooperation in Argumentation”, Topoi , first online: 23 December 2020. doi:10.1007/s11245-020-09736-9
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst, 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion , Dordrecht: Foris Publications. doi:10.1515/9783110846089
• –––, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616389
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 2014, Handbook of Argumentation Theory , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin, and Charles A. Willard, 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203811306
• Elqayam, Shira, 2018, “The New Paradigm in Psychology of Reasoning”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 130–150.
• Erduran, Sibel and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), 2007, Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (Science & Technology Education Library 35), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
• Eva, Benjamin and Stephan Hartmann, 2018, “Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity”, Psychological Review , 125(5): 806–821. doi:10.1037/rev0000114
• Everett, Daniel Leonard, 2008, Don’t Sleep! There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle , New York, NY: Vintage Books.
• Fantl, Jeremy, 2018, The Limitations of the Open Mind , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198807957.001.0001
• Feteris, Eveline T., 2017, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions , second edition, (Argumentation Library 1), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4
• Field, Hartry, 2008, Saving Truth From Paradox , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230747.001.0001
• Fisher, Matthew and Frank C. Keil, 2016, “The Trajectory of Argumentation and Its Multifaceted Functions”, in Paglieri, Bonelli, and Felletti 2016: 347–362.
• Fishkin, James, 2016, “Deliberative Democracy”, in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , Robert A. Scott and Marlis C. Buchmann, New York: Wiley.
• Fogelin, Robert, 1985, “The Logic of Deep Disagreements”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 3–11. doi:10.22329/il.v7i1.2696
• Fraassen, Bas C. van, 1989, Laws and Symmetry , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198248601.001.0001
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
• Geuss, Raymond, 2019, “A Republic of Discussion: Habermas at Ninety”, The Point Magazine , 18 June 2019. [ Geuss 2019 available online ]
• Gilbert, Michael A., 1994, “Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence”, Informal Logic , 16(2): 95–113. doi:10.22329/il.v16i2.2444
• –––, 1997, Coalescent Argumentation , Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• –––, 2004, “Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic”, Informal Logic , 24(3): 245–264. doi:10.22329/il.v24i3.2147
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1994, “Argumentation and Social Epistemology”, Journal of Philosophy , 91(1): 27–49. doi:10.2307/2940949
• –––, 2004, “An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 23(1): 49–61. doi:10.22329/il.v23i1.2153
• González González, Manuela, Julder Gómez, and Mariantonia Lemos, 2019, “Theoretical Considerations for the Articulation of Emotion and Argumentation in the Arguer: A Proposal for Emotion Regulation in Deliberation”, Argumentation , 33(3): 349–364. doi:10.1007/s10503-018-09476-6
• Goodwin, Jean, 2007, “Argument Has No Function”, Informal Logic , 27(1): 69–90. doi:10.22329/il.v27i1.465
• Gordon, Peter, 2004, “Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence from Amazonia”, Science , 306(5695): 496–499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492
• Gordon-Smith, Eleanor, 2019, Stop Being Reasonable: How We Really Change Minds , New York: Public Affairs.
• Govier, Trudy, 1999, The Philosophy of Argument , Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1981 [1984], Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1, Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press.
• –––, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Habernal, Ivan and Iryna Gurevych, 2017, “Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse”, Computational Linguistics , 43(1): 125–179. doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00276
• Hahn, Ulrike and Jos Hornikx, 2016, “A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation”, Synthese , 193(6): 1833–1873. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0
• Hahn, Ulrike and Mike Oaksford, 2006, “A Normative Theory of Argument Strength”, Informal Logic , 26(1): 1–24. doi:10.22329/il.v26i1.428
• –––, 2007, “The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies”, Psychological Review , 114(3): 704–732. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704
• Halpern, Daniel and Jennifer Gibbs, 2013, “Social Media as a Catalyst for Online Deliberation? Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression”, Computers in Human Behavior , 29(3): 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
• Hamblin, C. L., 1970, Fallacies , London: Methuen.
• Hample, Dale, 2006, Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410613486
• –––, 2018, Interpersonal Arguing , New York: Peter Lang.
• Harman, Gilbert H., 1965, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, The Philosophical Review , 74(1): 88–95. doi:10.2307/2183532
• Hart, H. L. A., 1961, The Concept of Law , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, 2010, “The Weirdest People in the World?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33(2–3): 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
• Hindman, Matthew, 2009, The Myth of Digital Democracy , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hintikka, Jaakko and Gabriel Sandu, 1997, “Game-Theoretical Semantics”, in Handbook of Logic and Language , Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 361–410.
• Hitchcock, David, 2007, “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument”, in Philosophy of Logic , Dale Jacquette (ed.), Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 101–129.
• Hornikx, Jos and Judith de Best, 2011, “Persuasive Evidence in India: An Investigation of the Impact of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 47(4): 246–257. doi:10.1080/00028533.2011.11821750
• Hornikx, Jos and Ulrike Hahn, 2012, “Reasoning and Argumentation: Towards an Integrated Psychology of Argumentation”, Thinking & Reasoning , 18(3): 225–243. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.674715
• Hornikx, Jos and Hans Hoeken, 2007, “Cultural Differences in the Persuasiveness of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality”, Communication Monographs , 74(4): 443–463. doi:10.1080/03637750701716578
• Howes, Moira and Catherine Hundleby, 2018, “The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation”, Symposion , 5(2): 229–254. doi:10.5840/symposion20185218
• Howson, Colin, 2000, Hume’s Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198250371.001.0001
• Hundleby, Catherine, 2013, “Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries”, Informal Logic , 33(2): 238–262. doi:10.22329/il.v33i2.3895
• Hutchins, Edwin, 1980, Culture and Inference: A Trobriand Case Study , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Irani, Tushar, 2017, Plato on the Value of Philosophy: The Art of Argument in the ‘Gorgias’ and ‘Phaedrus’ , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316855621
• Isenberg, Daniel J., 1986, “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(6): 1141–1151. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141
• Jackson, Sally, 2019, “Reason-Giving and the Natural Normativity of Argumentation”, Topoi , 38(4): 631–643. doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9553-5
• Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs, 1980, “Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme”, Quarterly Journal of Speech , 66(3): 251–265. doi:10.1080/00335638009383524
• Johnson, Ralph Henry and J. Anthony Blair, 1977, Logical Self-Defense , Toronto: McGraw Hill-Ryerson.
• Jorgensen Bolinger, Renée, 2021, “Demographic Statistics in Defensive Decisions”, Synthese , 198(5): 4833–4850. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02372-w
• Josephson, John R. and Susan G. Josephson (eds.), 1994, Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511530128
• Kahan, Dan M., 2017, Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition , Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper 164, Yale Law School Public Law Research Paper 605; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper 575. [ Kahan 2017 available online ]
• Kaplan, David, 1989, “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals”, in Themes From Kaplan , Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.
• Keil, Frank C., 2006, “Explanation and Understanding”, Annual Review of Psychology , 57: 227–254. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100
• Kidd, Ian James, 2016, “Intellectual Humility, Confidence, and Argumentation”, Topoi , 35(2): 395–402. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9324-5
• –––, 2020, “Martial Metaphors and Argumentative Virtues and Vices”, in Polarisation, Arrogance, and Dogmatism: Philosophical Perspectives , Alessandra Tanesini and Michael Lynch, London: Routledge, pp. 25–38.
• Kitcher, Philip, 2001, Science, Truth, and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195145836.001.0001
• Köymen, Bahar, Maria Mammen, and Michael Tomasello, 2016, “Preschoolers Use Common Ground in Their Justificatory Reasoning with Peers”, Developmental Psychology , 52(3): 423–429. doi:10.1037/dev0000089
• Köymen, Bahar and Michael Tomasello, 2020, “The Early Ontogeny of Reason Giving”, Child Development Perspectives , 14(4): 215–220. doi:10.1111/cdep.12384
• Krabbe, Erik C. W. and Jan Albert van Laar, 2015, “That’s No Argument! The Dialectic of Non-Argumentation”, Synthese , 192(4): 1173–1197. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0609-9
• Kramer, Adam D. I., Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, 2014, “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(24): 8788–8790. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111
• Kuhn, Deanna and Amanda Crowell, 2011, “Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking”, Psychological Science , 22(4): 545–552. doi:10.1177/0956797611402512
• Kukla, Quill Rebecca, 2014, “Performative Force, Convention, and Discursive Injustice”, Hypatia , 29(2): 440–457. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01316.x
• Kwong, Jack M. C., 2016, “Open-Mindedness as a Critical Virtue”, Topoi , 35(2): 403–411. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9317-4
• Lagewaard, T. J., 2021, “Epistemic Injustice and Deepened Disagreement”, Philosophical Studies , 178(5): 1571–1592. doi:10.1007/s11098-020-01496-x
• Lamond, Grant, 2014, “Analogical Reasoning in the Common Law”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 34(3): 567–588. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu014
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lewiński, Marcin, 2010, “Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 47(2): 86–105. doi:10.1080/00028533.2010.11821740
• Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus, 2014, “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry”, Argumentation , 28(2): 161–185. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x
• Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed, 2016, “Argumentation Theory”, in The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy , Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Robert T. Craig, Jefferson Pooley, and Eric W. Rothenbuhler (eds.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
• Lipton, Peter, 1971 [2003], Inference to the Best Explanation , London: Routledge. Second edition, 2003. doi:10.4324/9780203470855
• Lombrozo, Tania, 2007, “Simplicity and Probability in Causal Explanation”, Cognitive Psychology , 55(3): 232–257. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006
• Longino, Helen E., 1990, Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lorenzen, Paul and Kuno Lorenz, 1978, Dialogische Logik , Darmstadt: Wissenschafstliche Buchgesellschaft.
• Lumer, Christoph, 2005, “Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation—A Map”, Informal Logic , 25(3): 189–212. doi:10.22329/il.v25i3.1134
• Lynch, Michael Patrick, 2019, Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture , New York, NY: Liveright.
• Mäs, Michael and Andreas Flache, 2013, “Differentiation without Distancing. Explaining Bi-Polarization of Opinions without Negative Influence”, PLoS ONE , 8(11): e74516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516
• MacCormick, Neil, 1978, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Mackenzie, Jim, 1989, “Reasoning and Logic”, Synthese , 79(1): 99–117. doi:10.1007/BF00873257
• Massey, Gerald J., 1981, “The Fallacy behind Fallacies”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 6: 489–500. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00454.x
• McKinnon, Rachel, 2016, “Epistemic Injustice”, Philosophy Compass , 11(8): 437–446. doi:10.1111/phc3.12336
• Medina, José, 2011, “The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary”, Social Epistemology , 25(1): 15–35. doi:10.1080/02691728.2010.534568
• Mercier, Hugo, 2011, “On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning”, Journal of Cognition and Culture , 11(1–2): 85–113. doi:10.1163/156853711X568707
• –––, 2013, “Introduction: Recording and Explaining Cultural Differences in Argumentation”, Journal of Cognition and Culture , 13(5): 409–417. doi:10.1163/15685373-12342101
• –––, 2018, “Reasoning and Argumentation”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 401–414.
• Mercier, Hugo and Christophe Heintz, 2014, “Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning”, Topoi , 33(2): 513–524. doi:10.1007/s11245-013-9217-4
• Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber, 2017, The Enigma of Reason , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mercier, Hugo, M. Deguchi, J.-B. Van der Henst, and H. Yama, 2016, “The Benefits of Argumentation Are Cross-Culturally Robust: The Case of Japan”, Thinking & Reasoning , 22(1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/13546783.2014.1002534
• Merton, Robert, 1942, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. Reprinted Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999.
• Mohammed, Dima, 2016, “Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments”, Argumentation , 30(3): 221–245. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6
• Mouffe, Chantal, 1999, “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?”, Social Research , 66(3): 745–758.
• –––, 2000, The Democratic Paradox , London: Verso.
• Moulton, Janice, 1983, “A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method”, in Discovering Reality , Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka (eds.), (Synthese Library 161), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 149–164. doi:10.1007/0-306-48017-4_9
• Muller Mirza, Nathalie and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont (eds.), 2009, Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices , Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3
• Nelson, Michael and Edward N. Zalta, 2012, “A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths”, Philosophical Studies , 157(1): 153–162. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9624-y
• Netz, Reviel, 1999, The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics: A Study in Cognitive History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543296
• Nguyen, C. Thi, 2020, “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles”, Episteme , 17(2): 141–161. doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Norman, Andy, 2016, “Why We Reason: Intention-Alignment and the Genesis of Human Rationality”, Biology & Philosophy , 31(5): 685–704. doi:10.1007/s10539-016-9532-4
• Norton, John D., 2003, “A Material Theory of Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 70(4): 647–670. doi:10.1086/378858
• Nozick, Robert, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Oaksford, Mike and Nick Chater, 2018, “Probabilities and Bayesian Rationality”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 415–433.
• Olson, Kevin, 2011 [2014], “Deliberative Democracy”, in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts , Barbara Fultner (ed.), Durham, UK: Acument; reprinted London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 140–155.
• Olsson, Erik J., 2013, “A Bayesian Simulation Model of Group Deliberation and Polarization”, in Zenker 2013: 113–133. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0_6
• Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), 2018, Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (Argumentation Library 32), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4
• Paglieri, Fabio, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 2016, The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion , London: College Publications.
• Patterson, Steven W, 2011, “Functionalism, Normativity and the Concept of Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 31(1): 1–26. doi:10.22329/il.v31i1.3013
• Peldszus, Andreas and Manfred Stede, 2013, “From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey”, International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence , 7(1): 1–31. doi:10.4018/jcini.2013010101
• Perelman, Chaim and Lucia Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958 [1969], Traité de l’argumentation; la nouvelle rhétorique , Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Translated as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (trans), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
• Pollock, John L., 1987, “Defeasible Reasoning”, Cognitive Science , 11(4): 481–518. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
• Prakken, Henry and Giovanni Sartor, 2015, “Law and Logic: A Review from an Argumentation Perspective”, Artificial Intelligence , 227(October): 214–245. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.005
• Rahwan, Iyad and Guillermo Simari (eds.), 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0
• Raz, J., 2001, “Reasoning with Rules”, Current Legal Problems , 54(1): 1–18. doi:10.1093/clp/54.1.1
• Rehg, William, 2008, Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Reiter, R., 1980, “A Logic for Default Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence , 13(1–2): 81–132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
• Restall, Greg, 2004, “Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant”, in Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science , Shahid Rahman, John Symons, Dov M. Gabbay, and Jean Paul van Bendegem (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 163–173. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_10
• Rooney, Phyllis, 2012, “When Philosophical Argumentation Impedes Social and Political Progress”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 43(3): 317–333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2012.01568.x
• Sanders, Lynn M., 1997, “Against Deliberation”, Political Theory , 25(3): 347–376. doi:10.1177/0090591797025003002
• Schmitt, Carl, 1922 [2005], Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität , München Und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Part translated as Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty , George Schwab (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Translation reprinted 2005.
• Schotch, Peter K., Bryson Brown, and Raymond E. Jennings (eds.), 2009, On Preserving: Essays on Preservationism and Paraconsistent Logic , (Toronto Studies in Philosophy), Toronto/Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.
• Sequoiah-Grayson, Sebastian, 2008, “The Scandal of Deduction: Hintikka on the Information Yield of Deductive Inferences”, Journal of Philosophical Logic , 37(1): 67–94. doi:10.1007/s10992-007-9060-4
• Shapiro, Stewart, 2005, “Logical Consequence, Proof Theory, and Model Theory”, in Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic , Stewart Shapiro (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 651–670.
• –––, 2014, Varieties of Logic , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696529.001.0001
• Siegel, Harvey, 1995, “Why Should Educators Care about Argumentation?”, Informal Logic , 17(2): 159–176. doi:10.22329/il.v17i2.2405
• Sinhababu, Neil, 2017, Humean Nature: How Desire Explains Action, Thought, and Feeling , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198783893.001.0001
• Sklar, Elizabeth I. and Mohammad Q. Azhar, 2018, “Explanation through Argumentation”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction , Southampton, UK: ACM, pp. 277–285. doi:10.1145/3284432.3284470
• Smart, Paul, Richard Heersmink, and Robert W. Clowes, 2017, “The Cognitive Ecology of the Internet”, in Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice , Stephen J. Cowley and Frédéric Vallée-Tourangeau (eds.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 251–282. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8_13
• Sober, Elliott, 2015, Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107705937
• Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson, 2010, “Epistemic Vigilance”, Mind & Language , 25(4): 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
• Stebbing, Lizzie Susan, 1939, Thinking to Some Purpose , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Sunstein, Cass R., 2002, “The Law of Group Polarization”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 10(2): 175–195. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00148
• –––, 2017, #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge, 2006, “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs”, American Journal of Political Science , 50(3): 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
• Talisse, Robert B., 2019, Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190924195.001.0001
• Tanesini, Alessandra, 2020, “Arrogance, Polarisation and Arguing to Win”, in Tanesini and Lynch 2020: 158–174.
• Tanesini, Alessandra and Michael P. Lynch (eds.), 2020, Polarisation, Arrogance, and Dogmatism: Philosophical Perspectives , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429291395
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1971, “A Defense of Abortion”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(1): 47–66.
• Tindale, Christopher W., 2007, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806544
• –––, 2021, The Anthropology of Argument: Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003107637
• Tomasello, Michael, 2014, A Natural History of Human Thinking , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen E., 1958 [2003], The Uses of Argument , Cambridge University Press. Second edition, 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005
• Van Laar, Jan Albert and Erik C. W. Krabbe, 2019, “Pressure and Argumentation in Public Controversies”, Informal Logic , 39(3): 205–227. doi:10.22329/il.v39i3.5739
• Walton, Douglas N., 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• –––, 2002, Legal Argumentation and Evidence , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Walton, Douglas N. and Erik C.W. Krabbe, 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Walton, Douglas N., Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802034
• Weger, Harry, Jr., and Mark Aakhus, 2003, “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 40(1): 23–38. doi:10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards an Account of Argumentation in Science”, Argumentation , 4(3): 269–298. doi:10.1007/BF00173968
• Wenman, Mark, 2013, Agonistic Democracy: Constituent Power in the Era of Globalisation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511777158
• Williamson, Timothy, 2018, Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wodak, Ruth, 2016, “Argumentation, Political”, in The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication , Gianpietro Mazzoleni (ed.), London: Blackwell, 9 pages.
• Yardi, Sarita and Danah Boyd, 2010, “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter”, Bulletin of Science , Technology & Society, 30(5): 316–327. doi:10.1177/0270467610380011
• Young, Iris Marion, 2000, Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
• Zamora Bonilla, Jesús, 2006, “Science as a Persuasion Game: An Inferentialist Approach”, Episteme , 2(3): 189–201. doi:10.3366/epi.2005.2.3.189
• Zarefsky, David, 2014, Political Argumentation in the United States , Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Zenker, Frank (ed.), 2013, Bayesian Argumentation: The Practical Side of Probability , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0
• Angelelli, Ignacio, 1970, “The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic”, The Journal of Philosophy , 67(20): 800–815. doi:10.2307/2024013
• Ashworth, E. J., 2011, “The scope of logic: Soto and Fonseca on dialectic and informal arguments”, in Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500–1500 , Margaret Cameron and John Marenbon, Leiden: Brill, pp. 127–145.
• Bazán, B. C., J. W. Wippel, G. Fransen, and D. Jacquart, 1985, Les Questions Disputées et Les Questions Quodlibétiques dans les Facultés de Théologie, de Droit et de Médecine , Turnhout: Brepols.
• Castelnérac, Benoît and Mathieu Marion, 2009, “Arguing for Inconsistency: Dialectical Games in the Academy”, in Acts of Knowledge: History, Philosophy and Logic , Giuseppe Primiero and Shahid Rahman (eds), London: College Publications, pp. 37–76.
• DiPasquale, David M., 2019, Alfarabi’s “Book of Dialectic (Kitāb al-Jadal)”: On the Starting Point of Islamic Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108277822
• Duncombe, Matthew and Catarina Dutilh Novaes, 2016, “Dialectic and logic in Aristotle and his tradition”, History and Philosophy of Logic , 37: 1–8.
• Dutilh Novaes, Catarina, 2017, “What is logic?”, Aeon Magazine , 12 January 2017. [ Dutilh Novaes 2017 available online ]
• –––, 2020, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108800792
• El-Rouayheb, Khaled, 2016, “Arabic Logic after Avicenna”, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic , Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Stephen Read (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–93. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107449862.004
• Fink, Jakob L., 2012, “Introduction”, in The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle , Jakob Leth Fink (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511997969.001
• Fraser, Chris, 2013, “Distinctions, Judgment, and Reasoning in Classical Chinese Thought”, History and Philosophy of Logic , 34(1): 1–24. doi:10.1080/01445340.2012.724927
• Ganeri, Dr Jonardon, 2001, “Introduction: Indian Logic and the Colonization of Reason”, in his Indian Logic: A Reader , London: Routledge, pp. 1–25.
• Hansen, Chad, 1983, Language and Logic in Ancient China , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Hansen, Mogens Herman, 1977–88 [1991], Det Athenske Demokrati . Revised and translated as The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology , J.A. Crook (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
• Irani, Tushar, 2017, Plato on the Value of Philosophy: The Art of Argument in the “Gorgias” and “Phaedrus” , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316855621
• Matilal, Bimal Krishna, 1998, The Character of Logic in India , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Miller, Larry Benjamin, 2020, Islamic Disputation Theory: The Uses & Rules of Argument in Medieval Islam , (Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning 21), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0
• Nauta, Lodi, 2009, In Defense of Common Sense: Lorenzo Valla’s Humanist Critique of Scholastic Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nicholson, Hugh, 2010, “The Shift from Agonistic to Non-Agonistic Debate in Early Nyāya”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 38(1): 75–95. doi:10.1007/s10781-009-9081-0
• Notomi, Noburu, 2014, “The Sophists”, in Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy , Frisbee Sheffield and James Warren (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 94–110.
• Novikoff, Alex J., 2013, The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Phillips, Stephen H., 2017, “Fallacies and Defeaters in Early Navya Nyaya”, Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics , Joerg Tuske (ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 33–52.
• Prets, Ernst, 2001, “Futile and False Rejoinders, Sophistical Arguments and Early Indian Logic”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 29(5/6): 545–558. doi:10.1023/A:1013894810880
• Siderits, Mark, 2003, “Deductive, Inductive, Both or Neither?”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 31(1/3): 303–321. doi:10.1023/A:1024691426770
• Solomon, Esther Abraham, 1976, Indian Dialectics: Methods of Philosophical Discussion , Ahmedabad: B.J. Institute of Learning and Research.
• Taber, John A., 2004, “Is Indian Logic Nonmonotonic?”, Philosophy East and West , 54(2): 143–170. doi:10.1353/pew.2004.0009
• Wolfsdorf, David, 2013, “Socratic Philosophizing”, in The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates , John Bussanich and Nicholas D. Smith (eds.), London; New York: Continuum, pp. 34–67.
• Young, Walter Edward, 2017, The Dialectical Forge , (Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning 9), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25522-4

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

abduction | analogy: medieval theories of | analogy and analogical reasoning | Aristotle | Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Aristotle, General Topics: rhetoric | Bacon, Francis | Bayes’ Theorem | bias, implicit | Chinese Philosophy: logic and language in Early Chinese Philosophy | Chinese Philosophy: Mohism | Chinese Philosophy: Mohist Canons | Chinese room argument | cognition: embodied | critical thinking | Curry’s paradox | democracy | emotion | epistemology: virtue | ethics: virtue | fallacies | feminist philosophy, interventions: epistemology and philosophy of science | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on argumentation | Habermas, Jürgen | Hume, David | induction: problem of | legal reasoning: precedent and analogy in | liar paradox | logic: inductive | logic: informal | logic: non-monotonic | logic: paraconsistent | logic: relevance | logical consequence | Peirce, Charles Sanders | reasoning: defeasible | scientific knowledge: social dimensions of | Spinoza, Baruch | Stebbing, Susan | thought experiments

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Merel Talbi, Elias Anttila, César dos Santos, Hein Duijf, Silvia Ivani, Caglar Dede, Colin Rittberg, Marcin Lewiński, Andrew Aberdein, Malcolm Keating, Maksymillian Del Mar, and an anonymous referee for suggestions and/or comments on earlier drafts. This research was supported by H2020 European Research Council [771074-SEA].

Copyright © 2021 by Catarina Dutilh Novaes < cdutilhnovaes @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9 The Concept of an Argument

David hitchcock, 1. introduction [1] , [2].

The concept of an argument for which I propose an analysis is the reason-giving sense in which one speaks, for example, about Daniel Kahneman’s argument (2011, pp. 334-335) that the tendency of most people to be risk averse about gains but risk-seeking about losses is irrational. This sense of the word ‘argument’ should be sharply distinguished from the disputational sense in which one speaks about two people having an argument, discussed in Chapter 8. That these are two different senses is clear from the fact that languages other than English use two different words for the two senses. For example, in French, ‘to argue’ in the sense of quarrelling is ‘ disputer ’, whereas ‘to argue’ in the sense of giving reasons for or against is ‘ argumenter ’.

We could give a rough lexical definition of the word ‘argument’ in this sense by quoting the definition by the Hellenistic Stoics of an argument as “a system composed of premisses [3] and a conclusion” ( systêma ek lêmmatôn kai epiphoras , Diogenes Laertius 1925/ca. 210-240, 7.45). Aside from its idiosyncratic failure to recognize one-premiss arguments, this definition is an acceptable starting point for a conceptual analysis. That analysis would need to answer a number of questions raised by the lexical definition. What is a premiss? What is a conclusion? What sorts of entities can function as a premiss? What sorts can function as a conclusion? How do premisses and a conclusion form a unified system? Does such a system have an intrinsic function or purpose, or on the contrary can it be used for various purposes? What about complex arguments?

We should recognize that arguments are not necessarily the content or product of argumentation—that is, of communications in which arguments are exchanged. One can consider an argument for a certain position or policy even if nobody has ever used that argument. One can imagine crazy arguments that no sane person would ever put forward. One can apply the term ‘argument’ to unified stretches of solo reasoning where some conclusion is reached on the basis of reasons, as when one considers mentally various aspects of a situation and then describes “the argument that finally convinced me”. Indeed, it seems consistent with our ordinary use of the term ‘argument’ in its reason-giving sense to say that there are arguments that nobody has ever thought of and nobody ever will. The most we can demand is that an argument must be thinkable and expressible. Arguments as a class thus have no common function or purpose. They are not necessarily used to justify or establish something. Nor are they necessarily used to persuade anybody.

Thus, critical thinking textbooks that define ‘argument’ as “rational persuasion—an attempt to influence another or others using reasons” are actually describing one use of arguments, not the concept itself.

2. Simple arguments

Begin by considering simple arguments, in the sense of single-inference systems that consist of one or more premisses and one conclusion. Of what sorts of entities are such arguments composed? That is, what kind of object can function as a premiss, and what kind can function as a conclusion? A common answer is that these components are propositions, in the sense of postulated timeless and non-located entities that can be expressed linguistically (or in some other way) and that can be objects of belief or knowledge. Propositions however are not the right candidates to be premisses or conclusions.

As to premisses, consider the following two arguments:

(1)  Suppose that there is life on other planets in the universe. Then it makes sense to look for it.

(2)  There is life on other planets in the universe. So it makes sense to look for it.

These arguments have the same conclusion, but different premisses. But both premisses express the same proposition, that there is life on other planets in the universe. The difference is in the illocutionary act performed by someone who utters the premiss in standard contexts. In uttering argument (1), the author hypothesizes the propositional content of the premiss. In uttering argument (2), on the other hand, the author asserts the proposition. The difference makes a difference to the evaluation of the two arguments: argument (2) requires a stricter condition of premiss adequacy than argument (1).

If arguments need not be expressed but their premisses are illocutionary acts, the premisses must be illocutionary act-types rather than illocutionary act-tokens. Sometimes the type may have no actual tokens. Someone can use the same argument on different occasions, and different people can use the same argument. A premiss can be a supposition or an assertive or any other member of the class of illocutionary acts that Searle (1976) grouped under the label ‘representatives’, and which he defined (p. 10) as acts whose point is to commit the speaker, perhaps hypothetically or guardedly, to something’s being the case. It cannot be any other kind of illocutionary act, as we can see by noting the peculiarity of putting examples (taken from Hitchcock 2006, pp. 103-104) of the other kinds of illocutionary acts in premissary position before an inferential ‘therefore’:

(3) * What time is it? Therefore, you must go home .

(4) ? I promise to pick up some milk on the way home. Therefore, you don’t need to get it.

(5) * Congratulations on your anniversary. Therefore, you are married.

(6) * I hereby sentence you to two years less a day. Therefore, the guards will now take you to prison.

In standard contexts, the utterances in the premissary position are respectively (3) a directive (in particular, a request for information), (4) a commissive (in particular, a promise), (5) an expressive (in particular, a congratulation), and (6) a declarative (in particular, a judicial verdict). The inappropriateness of these pairings reveal the general inability of illocutionary acts other than representatives to function as premisses. The premiss in (4) is a borderline case, because a promise can be taken to imply a prediction (that the promise will be kept) and a prediction is a kind of assertion. It is the implicit prediction rather than the commitment that makes it possible to construe example (4) as an argument.

Among conclusions, we find a greater variety of illocutionary acts than among premisses. We have already seen two examples ((1) and (2) above) in which the conclusion is a representative. Conclusions (and premisses too) can be hedged by such qualifiers as ‘probably’, ‘presumably’, ‘possibly’, and the like, which are best given a speech-act interpretation. [4] Thus a wide range of representatives can be conclusions of arguments. But the other main kinds of illocutionary acts can also be conclusions, as we can see from the following examples (taken from Hitchcock 2006, p. 105):

(7) There is a forecast of thundershowers, so let’s cancel the picnic.

(8) I know how difficult it will be for you to get the milk, so I pro m ise you that I will pick it up on the way home.

(9) My conduct was inexcusable, so I apologize most sincerely.

(10) The evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime of which you are accused, so I hereby find you guilty as charged.

When these arguments are expressed in standard contexts, their conclusions are respectively (7) a directive, (8) a commissive, (9) an expressive, and (10) a declarative. Thus the conclusion of an argument can be an illocutionary act type of any kind: a representative, a directive, a commissive, an expressive, or a declarative.

A reason can be advanced as a reason against some claim as well as a reason for it. Consider the following example:

(11) Proponent: We need a concerted global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate future climate disruption. Opponent: A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done first to dete r mine whether it makes more sense to adapt to future climate disruption rather than to mitigate it.

Here the opponent’s reason is put forward as a reason against the proponent’s claim. The exchange has an inferential structure that is quite parallel to that in which a reason is put forward in support of a claim. In general, objections and criticisms seem to have just the same inferential structure as supports. In other words, there can be arguments against something as well as arguments for something. Consider an example. In the 11th century the monk Gaunilon objected to Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God that by the same reasoning one could prove the existence of a perfect island (Anselm 1903/1077-78). Gaunilon’s objection is an argument against the cogency of Anselm’s argument. It would involve needless and misleading subtlety to recast his objection as an argument in support of some claim. It is better to follow a number of authors who have recognized that there can be arguments against as well as arguments for (Johnson 2000; Rahwan et al. 2009; Freeman 2010; Wohlrapp 2014/2008).

In fact, the same reason can be adduced for a claim by one person and against the same claim by another person. For example, some people use the principle of self-determination as a reason for legalizing voluntary euthanasia, whereas others use it as a reason against legalizing voluntary euthanasia (Wohlrapp 2014/2008, pp. 264-265 [5] ). Each group advances an argument, and the two arguments clearly differ from each other. Thus it makes sense to add to the conception of an argument as a premiss-conclusion or claim-reason complex a third component indicating whether the reasons are to count for or against the claim. Further, to accommodate the existence of arguments against as well as arguments for, I shall hereafter use the term ‘target’ rather than ‘conclusion’ or ‘claim’ for the part of an argument to which its reasons are directed.

We are now in a position to say what a simple argument is:

A simple argument consists of one or more of the types of expression that can function as reasons, a “target” (any type of expression), and an indicator of whether the reasons count for or against the target. [6]

There may be no tokens of the component illocutionary act types. In other words, simple arguments as just defined are abstract structures that are not necessarily actually realized. We need impose no further restrictions on what can count as a simple argument, thus widening the class of arguments to the craziest combinations that one can imagine.

What gives such a set unity as a single argument is that someone puts forward or entertains, that is—adduces—its reasons as support for its target. In doing so, the person considers that the reasons, if true or otherwise acceptable, provide grounds for accepting or rejecting the target (to an extent indicated). Normally, the assumption motivating adducing the argument is that the person addressed by, or who considers, the argument did not previously think that the reasons provide the claimed support for, or opposition to, the target.

Goddu (2018) has objected to this way of securing the unity of an actualized argument. He contends that a person can entertain an argument mentally without supposing that its reasons support (or oppose) its target. One can for example wonder whether the reasons in an argument one is considering actually support the target. This is true, but in such a case the person considering the argument is viewing it as an argument that someone might or could adduce, i.e., as a hypothetical argument, a possible complex of reasons, indicator, and target.

Someone who adduces reasons as counting for or against a target must express the indicator, and must be the author of either the reasons or the target. But such an adducer need not be the author of both reasons and target. One can draw a conclusion from something someone else has said, in which case the person who draws the conclusion adduces what the other person said as supporting the conclusion drawn. One can provide reasons against someone else’s claim, in which case the person who provides the reasons adduces them as opposing the other person’s claim. In any situation where an argument is expressed, the adducer is the person who articulates the inferential claim conveyed by the indicator that points to the argument’s target.

3. Complex arguments

So far this conception of an argument accommodates only simple arguments, i.e. single-inference arguments with a set of one or more reasons, a target, and an indication of whether the reasons count for or against the target. We need to allow as well for complex arguments that involve a chain of reasoning or embedded suppositional reasoning.

3.1 Chain of reasoning arguments

In chained arguments, a reason of one argument (which I will call ‘the superordinate argument’) is the target of another (which I will call ‘the subordinate argument’ or ‘sub-argument’). Since only representatives can be reasons, the target of any subordinate argument must be a representative. There is no limit to the depth of chaining. The ultimate target in a chain of reasoning is supported or opposed by one or more reasons, each of which may be the target of one or more reasons in a sub-argument, each of which in turn may be the target of one or more reasons in a sub-sub-argument, and so on indefinitely. In an expressed sub-argument at any level, the reasons must be adduced in support of the target. Otherwise the target would have to be the complement of the reason in the superordinate argument to which it was linked. But it is hard to define the complement of a representative illocutionary act. What, for example, is the complement of a hedged assertion of the form ‘probably p ’? Representatives incompatible with ‘probably p ’ include ‘definitely p ’, ‘probably p ′ ’, and ‘definitely p ′ ’, where p ′ is a contradictory of p . An argument against some target that was used to support a reason of the form ‘probably p ’ would therefore need an unwieldy disjunction as its target, for which it would be difficult if not impossible to formulate a set of reasons that successfully opposed each disjunct simultaneously. Since subordinate simple arguments in an expressed complex argument make sense only if their reasons are presented in support of their target, it makes sense to limit unexpressed subordinate simple arguments in the same way.

The natural way to accommodate the indefinite complexity of chained arguments is to use a recursion clause that can be applied again and again so as to build up arguments of increasing complexity. The process is analogous to that by which one defines what a person’s ancestor is by saying that a parent of a person is an ancestor of that person and that a parent of any ancestor of that person is also an ancestor of that person. This definition allows one to construct the class of a person’s ancestors, starting with the person’s parents, then adding the grandparents, then the great-grandparents, and so on without end.

In defining recursively what an argument is, one needs to take some care in constructing the recursion clause for chaining arguments. The most sensible way to do so seems to be to add one at a time a simple argument for a reason in an already constructed argument. One can conceive of a simple argument, which is a triple, as a unit set, a set with one member. One can combine it with a simple argument whose target is a reason in the first argument by taking the union of the two sets, i.e., the set whose members are all the triples that are members of either set. And then one can combine this set of two triples with a third simple argument whose target is a reason in one of the first two triples. And so on. Let us call a reason in any triple in a set of such triples a ‘reason in the argument’. The recursion clause might then read as follows:

If in an argument something is a reason but is not a target, then the union of that argument with a simple argument whose target is that reason and whose indicator is positive is also an argument.

As with the definition of simple arguments, this clause allows that the most fantastic and crazy combinations are arguments in the abstract sense. The condition that the reason is not already a target is meant to exclude from being a single argument structures in which a reason is the target of more than one simple argument. Just as multiple arguments for or against the same ultimate target do not constitute a single argument, so too multiple arguments for the same intermediate target cannot be components of a single complex argument.

3.2 Embedded suppositional reasoning

Chaining is one of two ways to construct complex arguments. The other is embedding, where suppositional reasoning is used to support or oppose a target, with one or more of its suppositions being “discharged” in the process. (E.g., “Suppose the U.S. did not use the atomic bombs in WWII. Had that been the case, then probably…” or “Suppose we take on the debt of a big mortgage and buy a house. If we were to do that, then …”.) Any line of suppositional reasoning is an argument according to the recursive definition of argument developed so far. To allow for embedding one or more such lines of suppositional reasoning, we need to allow that a line of suppositional reasoning can count as something like a reason. [7] One way to do so is to take the line of suppositional reasoning as an implicit assertion that the ultimate target of the line of suppositional reasoning follows from its ultimate supposition in combination with any other ultimate reasons used in derivation of the ultimate target. (The assertion may be qualified, if either an inference or an ultimate reason in the suppositional reasoning is qualified.)

When the suppositional reasoning is embedded in a larger context, the target external to this line of reasoning is a representative, which in the case of nested suppositional reasoning may itself have a suppositional status. The recursion clause allowing embedding of suppositional reasoning thus needs to allow for the dual complexity of chains of reasoning from suppositions and nesting of suppositional reasoning inside suppositional reasoning. It also needs to allow that a line of suppositional reasoning can be used in opposition to a target as well in support of one. If the target of a line of suppositional reasoning is a reason in a sub-argument, however, then the expression of such a complex argument makes sense only if the suppositional reasoning is adduced in support of the target, for the same reason that an expressed chained simple sub-argument makes sense only if its reasons are adduced in support of its target: an opposed target would have to be too complex to count as the complement of the reason in the superordinate argument that is being indirectly supported by opposition to the target of the suppositional reasoning.

In general, too, it makes sense to use a line of suppositional reasoning only if its internal ultimate target is argued for rather than against, since all the recognized legitimate ways of discharging a supposition assume that the supposition is used to support the ultimate target. Similar restrictions to arguments with a positive indicator are therefore appropriate for abstract arguments that need not be expressed. It seems an unnecessary further complication, however, to incorporate in a clause allowing embedding the specific ways in which a supposition in a piece of suppositional reasoning may legitimately be discharged. [8] The abstract definition of an argument will thus allow for embedding pieces of suppositional reasoning in totally illegitimate ways.

The following is a possible recursion clause allowing embedding;

A triple is an argument if its first member is a set whose members include at least one argument with a suppositional ultimate reason, whose third member (the target) is an illocutionary act of any kind, and whose second member is an indicator of whether the members of the set count for or against the target.

As is usual with recursive definitions, there needs to be a final closure clause to the effect that nothing is an argument unless it is an argument according to the base clause and the recursion clauses. [9] One can illustrate and test the resulting definition by using its clauses to construct complex arguments as they appear in argumentative texts.

As with the abstract concept of a single argument, we need a basis for the unity of an expressed complex argument. An expressed chaining of two arguments is a complex illocutionary act of adducing the resulting chain of reasoning as supporting or opposing the ultimate target of the superordinate argument in the chain (i.e. the argument that has a reason which the subordinate simple argument targets). The essence of adducing in this case is that the utterance of the adducer counts as a claim that in each link of the chain the reasons if true or otherwise acceptable would provide epistemic support for the target or as a claim that the reasons if true or otherwise acceptable would provide epistemic opposition to the target. An embedding of an argument is a complex act of adducing the embedded suppositional reasoning, possibly along with one or more reasons, as support for or opposition to the target of the argument in which the suppositional reasoning is embedded. The essence of adducing in this case is that the utterance of the adducer counts as a claim that the suppositional reasoning would if the additional reasons (if any) were true or otherwise acceptable provide epistemic support for the target or as a claim that the suppositional reasoning would if the additional reasons (if any) were true or otherwise acceptable provide epistemic opposition to the target. The content conditions, preparatory conditions and sincerity conditions for these more complex acts of adducing are a function of the content, preparatory and sincerity conditions for the simple acts of adducing from which they are constituted.

As with simple expressed arguments, we can accommodate complex arguments that are merely considered by a hypothetically possible act of adducing. If one is considering a complex abstract argument as a whole that could be used to adduce the reasons as supporting or opposing its ultimate target, then one is considering an argument.

The conception of an argument that I propose has the following distinctive features:

• It takes the ultimate constituents of arguments to be illocutionary act types rather than propositions, statements, utterances, and the like.
• It allows for arguments against something as well as arguments for something.
• It allows the reasons in an argument to be any kind of representative illocutionary act.
• It allows arguments to have as their target any kind of illocutionary act.
• It distinguishes arguments as abstract structures that may never be expressed or even thought of from expressed arguments.
• It locates the unity of an expressed or mentally entertained argument in a second-order illocutionary act of adducing, which may be actual or merely hypothetically entertained.
• It allows for a variety of uses of arguments, since neither the abstract conception of an argument nor the act of adducing that constitutes a complex of illocutionary act types as a single argument includes any conception of the purpose or function of an argument.
• It provides explicitly for complex arguments to be constructed recursively by steps of chaining and embedding.

Anselm, Saint (1903/1077-78). Proslogium ; Monologium : An appendix in behalf of the fool by Gaunilo ; and Cur deus homo , translated from the Latin by Sidney Norton Deane, B.A. with an introduction, bibliography, and reprints of the opinions of leading philosophers and writers on the ontological argument. Chicago: Open Court. Latin original of the Proslogium written in 1077-78.

Diogenes Laertius (1925/ca. 210-240). Lives of eminent philosophers , with an English translation by R. D. Hicks, 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 184 and 185. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. First published ca. 210-240 CE.

Ennis, Robert H. (2006). ‘Probably’. In David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays on argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 145-164). Dordrecht: Springer.

Freeman, James B. (2010). Commentary on Geoffrey C. Goddu’s “Refining Hitchcock’s definition of ‘argument’”. In Juho Ritola (Ed.), Argument cu l tures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1-10). Windsor, ON: OSSA. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=ossaarchive .

Goddu, Geoffrey C. (2018). Against the intentional definition of argument. In Steve Oswald and Didier Maillat (Eds .), Proceedings of the Second E u ropean Conference on Argumentation, University of Fribourg, Switzerland, 20-23 June 2017 , Vol. II (pp. 337-346). London: College Publications.

Hitchcock, David (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In Dale Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic , volume 5 of Dov M. Gabbay, Paul Thagard & John Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of sc i ence (pp. 101-129). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hitchcock, David (2017). The concept of argument. In David Hitchcock, On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and on critical thinking (pp. 518-529). Dordrecht: Springer.

Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of a r gument . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Rahwan, Iyad, & Chris Reed (2009). The Argument Interchange Format. In Guillermo R. Simari (Ed.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 383-402). Boston: Springer.

Searle, John R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society , 5(1): 1-23.

Toulmin, Stephen Edelston (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wohlrapp, Harald R. (2014/2008). The concept of argument: A philosoph i cal foundation . Dordrecht: Springer. German original first published in 2008.

• © David Hitchcock ↵
• This chapter uses material from “The concept of argument” (Hitchcock 2017, pp. 518-529; © Springer International Publishing AG 2017), with permission of Springer. ↵
• ‘Premise’ and ‘premiss’ are both acceptable spellings of the word. Some authors prefer the first, which is more common in the USA; some prefer the second, which is found more often in Great Britain. ↵
• As Toulmin (1958, pp. 47-62) and Ennis (2006, pp. 145-164) have argued. ↵
• Wohlrapp argues that if voluntary euthanasia becomes legal on the basis that self-determination requires it, those whose condition might qualify them for approval to be euthanized but who want merely to live out the remainder of their natural lives are pressured by appeals to self-determination to submit to euthanasia. The supposedly liberating value becomes coercive. ↵
• More precisely: A simple argument is a triple whose first member is a set of one or more representative illocutionary act types (called ‘the reasons’), whose third member (called ‘the target’) is an illocutionary act type of any kind, and whose second member is an indicator of whether the reasons count for or against the target. ↵
• It won’t do, however, to count it as a reason in the same sense as that in which a representative is a reason. Otherwise the recursion clause for chaining would allow for arguments that are subordinate to a line of suppositional reasoning, which makes no sense. ↵
• One way of legitimately discharging a supposition is conditional proof, in which one derives a conditional from a line of suppositional reasoning that starts from the supposition of the conditional’s antecedent and ends with the conditional’s consequent. A variant form of conditional proof starts from the supposition of a contradictory of a conditional’s consequent and ends with a contradictory of its antecedent. Another way to legitimately discharge a supposition is reductio ad absurdum, in which one uses a line of reasoning from a supposition to some absurdity as a reason for denying the supposed proposition. Another is argument by cases, in which one considers an allegedly exhaustive set of possible cases, deriving the same ultimate target from the supposition of each case, and then drawing this ultimate target as a conclusion. Another is to argue for a proposition in a proof by mathematical induction by supposing at the inductive step that the proposition holds for the number n (or for every number up to and including n) and deriving from this supposition that then it also holds for the number n 1. Another is universal generalization, in which one derives a universal generalization about a kind by reasoning from the supposition that some individual is of that kind to the conclusion that the generalization holds for this individual, without using any other assumption about the individual. ↵
• One can express the recursive definition in the customary form of a statement in which there appears in the first part the term to be defined, in the last part the defining part of the definition, and in between these two parts an indicator (such as ‘means’, ‘=df’, ‘if and only if’, or ‘is a’) that the defining part states the meaning of the defined term. For example, one could say that something is an argument if and only if it belongs to every set that includes everything that satisfies the base clause, as well as everything that can be constructed from its members using the recursion clauses for chaining and embedding. ↵

Studies in Critical Thinking Copyright © by David Hitchcock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Nearly all scholarly writing makes an argument. That’s because its purpose is to create and share new knowledge so it can be debated to confirm, disprove, or improve it. That arguing takes place mostly in journals and scholarly books and at conferences. It’s called the scholarly conversation, and it’s that conversation that moves forward what we humans learn and know.

Your scholarly writing for classes should do the same—make an argument—just like your professors’ journal article, scholarly book, and conference presentation writing does. You may not have realized that the writing you’re required to do mirrors what scholars in universities, the country, and all over the world must do to create new knowledge and debate it. Most arguments put forth a new theory, hypothesis, or new view of a current or ongoing issue. Of course, you’re probably a beginner at constructing arguments in writing, while most professors have been at it for some time. And your audience, for now, also may be more limited than your professors. But the process is much the same. As you complete your research assignments, you, too, are entering the scholarly conversation.

Making an argument means trying to convince others that you are correct as you describe a thing, situation, relationship, or phenomenon and to persuade them to take a particular action. This skill is important not just in college, but also for nearly every professional job you hold after college. So learning how to make an argument is good job preparation, even if you do not choose a scholarly career.

If you realize that your final product for your research project is to make an argument, you will have a significant head start. By keeping this in mind you will know that the resources you’re going to need are those that support the components of an argument for are writing your audience.

Happily (and not coincidentally), most of those components coincide with the information needs we’ll be talking about. We will be discussing meeting information needs by using a variety of resources that will enable you to write the corresponding argument component in your final product.

Critical Thinking in Academic Research Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

8 Analysis, argument and critical thinking

In this section, we are going to look in detail at analysis and argument. Analytical thinking is a particular type of higher order thinking central to much academic activity. It is concerned with examining 'methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of something' (Oxford English Dictionary). This includes looking at variables, factors, and relationships between things, as well as examining ideas and problems, and detecting and analysing arguments. Many essay questions require argument. Skills in manipulating content to make a good argument can make the difference between higher and lower assignment grades.

You can start to explore the ideas of analysis and argument by using an everyday example.

Image of the back of a cereal packet. It reads:

‘Why is breakfast the most important meal of the day?

‘Hectic lifestyle have become a part of the way we live today, whether we’re rushing off to work, getting the kids off to school or looking after a demanding familty. Eating breakfast refuels the body and helps get the day off to a good start. Breakfast cereals are an important part of a healthy diet as they are low in fat, high in carbohydrates and provide some fibre. Just one bowl of Sainsbury’s cereals also provides the following vitamins and minerals.’

The cereal packet then lists the vitamins and minerals provided, alongside some unreadable information about each. The vitamins and minerals listed are: vitamin D, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, niacin, vitamin B8, vitaming B12, pantothenic acid, iron.

Activity 19

Making use of the description of Figure 3 available in the link below the image, on a sheet of paper note down your responses to the following questions.

What was your reaction to doing this activity?

What do you think the text was aiming to do?

Do you feel the writer was successful in achieving what she or he set out to do?

What worked and what did not work?

How did you feel about this activity? Perhaps your first reaction is that under normal circumstances you would not read the back of a cereal packet. Perhaps you would normally be too busy to read this sort of thing, or would not bother because it is not relevant or of interest. The attention we give to something is dependent on the context. You probably do not have to read and think about cereal packets, but do need to read and think carefully about academic texts.

Did you accept what was written or did the text prompt you to ask questions such as 'What is the purpose of this text?' The initial question 'Why breakfast is the most important meal of the day?' seems to suggest that the aim of the text might to be to provide answers, perhaps to convince us that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. You might reasonably have expected the text to provide some good reasons for us to be convinced of this. But perhaps after reading it, you decided that the writer's aim was simply to convince you that eating cereals for breakfast is a good thing.

If the aim was to show that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, was the text a convincing argument? The writer certainly tells us that 'breakfast refuels the body and helps get the day off to a good start', which could be a reason to support the view that breakfast is important, but is not really one to convince us that breakfast is the most important meal. The writer has not told us why breakfast is more important than lunch, tea, dinner or supper. He or she seems to unquestioningly accept or assume that breakfast is the most important meal. Telling us about hectic lifestyles or the nutritional benefits of breakfast cereals does not tell us why breakfast is the most important meal. The relevance of these points is not clear at all. All in all, this is not a very convincing case for breakfast being the most important meal of the day. If the aim were really to persuade us to eat cereals, would we be convinced? It is hard to know if the information given as facts is correct and relevant to a healthy diet unless you have some knowledge of nutritional science.

Although this is a simple everyday text, it provides an opportunity to exercise analytical thinking skills. The process of looking at the structure and parts of something in the way we have done here is what we mean by analysis. The text also illustrates the ideas of having a point or a case you wish to prove, and providing evidence and reasons to support it - together these form what the academic world calls an argument. This is very different from the everyday sense of the word, 'having a disagreement'. Here, we have been analysing an argument.

Activity 20

What do you think is needed to make an argument a really good one (i.e. for the case to be convincing)?

What could be done to improve (make more convincing) the argument analysed in Activity 19 ?

When arguing a case, it needs to be clear what the case is. Perhaps, in the example above, the title should have been 'Why breakfast cereal is worth eating'. A good argument will have a clear and logical flow (line of reasoning). The sequence of thinking in the example was not clear or logical. For example, starting from the original question, a logical path might lead to discussion of reasons why breakfast is more important than other meals, and perhaps include information on demands on the body and physiological perspectives on the timing and types of food eaten. To be convinced, we need good reasons or evidence which is relevant. It is not immediately clear how the information about the nutritional value of breakfast cereals is relevant to the case for breakfast being the most important meal of the day. Moreover, how do we know the information is correct?

Activity 21

Having appropriate evidence to support arguments is important.

Which of the following statements might be most convincing and why? ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe. ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe because Mike Edwards says so. ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe because an eminent Cambridge Professor of Astronomy says so. ▪ There is a high probability of life on other planets in the universe because we know from studies by experts that there are in the order of 100 billion stars in our galaxy and there are 100 billion galaxies. This gives 10 22 stars. Some of these stars are likely to have planets associated with them. While the conditions conducive to life are rare, such a large number of planets gives a high probability that life will exist on a planet somewhere in the universe. ▪ Samples of surface material from other planets in the universe have been taken by space missions and found to contain life forms. (Adapted from Collier and Twomey, 1997)

It would be reasonable to feel somewhat unconvinced by the first statement; it is an unsupported assertion. It may well just be an opinion, there is no reason or evidence provided. Being able to distinguish fact from opinion is important. In the second case, the statement is apparently given authority by being attributed to Mike Edwards. The question is - who is Mike Edwards? What reason is there for believing him rather than anyone else? We do not know on what basis he has made such a statement. We might feel a bit more convinced by the eminent Cambridge Professor of Astronomy. After all she or he may have spent many years in relevant study and be making a statement based on this wealth of experience. But, what if the professor had not been a professor of astronomy? What credence would we give to someone's views if they were an expert in another area? For example, a pop star or celebrity chef making a statement on a political issue? We need to take care in transferring authority in one area to another. Maybe someone's skills are transferable to another situation - but maybe not. The penultimate case is more convincing, because we are presented with a logical line of reasoning. In the final statement, we appear to have factual evidence that there are life forms on other planets. Even then, we need to think about the certainty of 'facts'. Knowledge changes and depends on context. It is only as good as the methods used to obtain it. Instances of 'facts' turning out to be artefacts of methods are common. Perhaps in this case the life forms found in the samples were contaminants on the equipment (acquired from Earth before or after the sampling journey). Sometimes, general conclusions are drawn from insufficient data or information. Does the evidence provide sufficient information to prove something or only suggest something is probable?

We hope this example illustrates the importance of using appropriate evidence or reasoning to support an argument, and the importance of being cautious in what you use and accept as evidence. You should certainly avoid unsupported assertions in academic work and strive to provide the most appropriate and convincing evidence you can.

• Undergraduate Courses
• Postgraduate Taught Courses
• Professional, Part-time and Evening Courses
• PhDs and Research Masters
• Online Courses
• Micro-credentials
• How to Apply
• Fees & Funding
• Modes of Study
• Scholarships

Choosing a course is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make! View our courses and see what our students and lecturers have to say about the courses you are interested in at the links below.

View Courses

• Accommodation Advisory Service
• Campus Activities
• Student Support
• Study Abroad
• International Office
• Mature Students
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Ambassador Programme
• For Parents and Guardians
• Access Student Information
• Life in Galway

University Life

Each year more than 4,000 choose University of Galway as their University of choice. Find out what life at University of Galway is all about here.

Read about life at University of Galway

• News & Events
• Strategy 2020-2025
• Cois Coiribe (Publication)
• University Leadership
• Sustainability - National SDG Champion

About University of Galway

Since 1845, University of Galway has been sharing the highest quality teaching and research with Ireland and the world. Find out what makes our University so special – from our distinguished history to the latest news and campus developments.

About University of Galway

• Adult Learning and Professional Development
• College of Arts, Social Sciences, & Celtic Studies
• College of Business, Public Policy and Law
• College of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences
• College of Science and Engineering

Colleges & Schools

University of Galway has earned international recognition as a research-led university with a commitment to top quality teaching across a range of key areas of expertise.

Colleges and Schools

• Research Areas
• Research Office
• Innovation Office
• Researcher Development Centre
• Research Community Portal
• Research centres, institutes, and units

Research & Innovation

University of Galway’s vibrant research community take on some of the most pressing challenges of our times.

• Career Development Centre (for Employers)
• Business Innovation Centre
• Conference & Event Centre

Guiding Breakthrough Research at University of Galway

We explore and facilitate commercial opportunities for the research community at University of Galway, as well as facilitating industry partnership.

• Latest News
• Alumni Services
• Cois Coiribe
• Alumni Awards
• Follow our Social Channels
• Update Your Details
• Upcoming Alumni Events
• Previous Alumni Events

Alumni & Friends

There are 128,000 University of Galway alumni worldwide. Stay connected to your alumni community! Join our social networks and update your details online.

• About Engagement
• Learning with Community
• Community Partnerships
• Research with Communities
• University of Sanctuary

Community Engagement

At University of Galway, we believe that the best learning takes place when you apply what you learn in a real world context. That's why many of our courses include work placements or community projects.

Real Learning

Gateway Pages

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Ollscoil na Gaillimhe
• A High Contrast
• Registration
• Office 365 (Email)
• Student Registry Helpdesk
• Fees & Grants
• Exam Timetables
• Academic Skills Hub
• Student Services
• Student Volunteering
• Students' Union
• Financial System (Agresso)
• Academic Records
• Human Resources
• Academic Terms Dates
• Information Solutions & Services (IT Services)
• Buildings & Estates
• Service Desk
• Colleges & Schools
• Evaluating arguments and evidence
• Getting Started
• Getting Organised
• Communication Skills
• IT and Digital Skills
• Reading and Research Skills
• What is Critical Thinking?
• How to develop your critical thinking skills
• Reflective practice and reflective writing
• Maths and Statistics
• Assignments and Exams
• Galway Exams 101

For many students, the terms ‘critical’ and ‘argument’ sound a bit negative. You are probably used to thinking of an ‘argument’ as a disagreement or a row – not a very pleasant thing to experience. But the word ‘argument’ has a different meaning in an academic context.

At university, an argument means a statement that is backed up with some kind of objective evidence. You may be trying to identify the arguments of others, or you may be trying to build your own arguments; for example, while writing an academic essay or report.

Often, there is an ‘overarching argument’ or thesis (for example: there is a strong case for the government increasing student fees and introducing a student loan system) supported by a number of ‘contributing arguments’ (for example: current funding mechanisms are unsustainable and inequitable, such a system can be tweaked so that repayments are linked to income after graduation, and so on). Each contributing argument needs to be backed up with evidence .

Of course, for most arguments, there are also ‘counter-arguments’ – that is, opposing arguments – and these must be fully considered as well (for example, if we stay with the student fees and loans example: there are other options for funding higher education in a sustainable and equitable way, linking repayments to income after graduation can be problematic, and so on). Counter-arguments also need to be evidence-based.

When reading and researching for your course, it is really important to be able to, firstly, identify arguments, and then to analyse and evaluate them. Generally a statement is an ‘argument’ if it:

• Presents a particular point of view
• Bases that view on objective evidence

If you come across an assertion that is not based on evidence that can reasonably be considered objective, it is just that – an assertion, not an argument. Also, a statement of fact is not an argument, although it might be evidence that could be used in support of an argument.

When evaluating an argument, here are some things that you might consider:

• Who is making the argument?
• What gives them authority to make the argument?
• What evidence is given in support of the argument? Has this evidence been tested elsewhere? Could alternative approaches have been used?
• Does the evidence upon which the argument is based come from a reliable and independent source? How do you know? Who funded the research that produced the evidence?
• Are there alternative perspectives or counter-arguments? You should evaluate any counter-arguments in just the same way.
• What are the implications of the argument, for example, for policy or for practice?

See our guide to ‘ Arguments, non-arguments and evidence ’ for more.

You might also find the Reading and Research Skills  section of the Academic Skills Hub useful. 

Arguments, non-arguments, and evidence PDF (181 KB)

Top tips for reflective practice and writing PDF (156 KB)

Manage Cookies

Some features need cookies to work properly. Cookies also let us (a) remember your preferences, (b) collect anonymous usage statistics, and (c) see how well our online ads are working.

No personal data is stored on these cookies but, under EU law, we still need to ask you this every 6 months. To learn more about our use of cookies, view our Privacy Policy .

Founded in 1845, we've been inspiring students for over 175 years. University of Galway has earned international recognition as a research-led university with a commitment to top quality teaching.

University of Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland H91 TK33 T. +353 91 524411

Get Directions Send Us an Email

Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube LinkedIn RSS

© 2023 University of Galway. All Rights Reserved. Server AWS University of Galway is a registered charity. RCN 20002107

• Privacy & Cookies
• Contact & Enquiries
• Accessibility

Argumentation, Evidence Evaluation and Critical Thinking

• First Online: 23 November 2011
• pp 1001–1015

Cite this chapter

• María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre 4 &
• Blanca Puig 4  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 24))

13k Accesses

32 Citations

This chapter addresses the relationships between argumentation and critical thinking. The underlying questions are how argumentation supports the capacity to discriminate between claims justified by evidence and mere opinion, and how argumentation can contribute to two types of objectives related to learning science and to citizenship. First, various meanings for critical thinking in different communities are reviewed. Then, we propose our characterisation of critical thinking, which assumes that evidence evaluation is an essential component, but that there are other components related to the capacities of reflecting on the world around us and of participating in it (e.g. developing an independent opinion, including challenging the ideas of one’s own community). This characterisation draws both from the notion of commitment to evidence and from critical theorists. Using this frame, the chapter examines the contributions of argumentation in science education to the components of critical thinking, and also discusses the evaluation of evidence and the different factors influencing or even hampering it. The chapter concludes with consideration of the development of critical thinking in the science classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Thinking and/or Argumentation in Higher Education

Fostering critical reasoning: Developing argumentative competence in early and middle primary years

Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education , 69 , 453–475.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science , 29 , 1–32.

Google Scholar  

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La reproduction: Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement . Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit (Translated as: Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage, 1977).

Cooper, K., & White, R. (2007). The practical critical educator . Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1992). Darwin . London: Penguin.

Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991, April). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Eirexas, F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007, August). What does sustainability mean? Critical thinking and environmental concepts in arguments about energy by 12th grade students . Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Malmo.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ennis, R. H. (1992). Critical thinking: What is it? In H. A. Alexander (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 1992: Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (pp. 76–80). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research . Dordrecht: Springer.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language . Harlow: Longman.

Freinet, C. (1969). Pour l’école du peuple . Paris: Maspero.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia do oprimido . Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. (Translated as Pedagogy of the oppressed , Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972).

Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Habermas, J. (1981–1984). The theory of communicative action . Boston: Beacon Press.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agraso, M. F., & Eirexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific authority and empirical data in argument warrants about the Prestige oil spill . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 , 757–792.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Federico-Agraso, M. (2009). Justification and persuasion about cloning: Arguments in Hwang’s paper and journalistic reported versions . Research in Science Education , 39, 331–347. doi 10.1007/s11165-008-9113-x.

Kelly, G. J., Druker S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education , 20 , 849–871.

Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117–136). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific issues. Science Education , 90 , 632–655.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

López-Facal, R., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). Identities, social representations and critical thinking. Cultural Studies of Science Education , 4, 689–695. doi 10.1007/s11422-008-9134-9.

Maloney, J. (2007). Children’s roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal , 33 , 371–401.

Márquez, C., Prats, A., & Marbá, A. (2007, August). A critical reading of press advertisement in the science class . Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Malmo.

McCarthy, C. (1992). Why be critical? (Or rational or moral?) On the justification of critical thinking. In H. A. Alexander (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 1992: Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (pp. 60–68). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Moscovici (1961–1976). La psychanalyse, son image et son public (2nd ed. revised). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Norris, S. P. (1992). Bachelors, buckyballs and ganders: Seeking analogues for definitions of “critical thinker”. In H. A. Alexander (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 1992: Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (pp. 69–71). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education , 79 , 201–217.

Norris, S. P., & Korpan, C. A. (2000). Science, views about science, and pluralistic science education. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 227–244). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science . London: King’s College London.

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). What do 9th grade students consider as evidence for or against claims about genetic differences in intelligence between black and white “races”? In M. Hammann, A. J. Waarlo & K. Boersma (Eds.), The nature of research in biological education: Old and new perspectives on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 137–151). Utrecht: Utrecht University CD-ß Press.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio scientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42 , 112–138.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education . New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese , 80 , 9–41.

Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Studies of Science Education . doi 10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x.

Sóñora, F., García-Rodeja, I., & Brañas, M. (2001). Discourse analysis: Pupils’ discussions of soil science. In I. García-Rodeja, J. Díaz, U. Harms, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd ERIDOB Conference (pp. 313–326). Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de Compostela.

Stanisstreet, M., Spofforth N., & Williams, T. (1993). Attitudes of children to the uses of animals. International Journal of Science Education , 15 , 411–425.

Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2000). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 2 , 815–832.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning on argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The effect of the biology critical thinking project on the development of critical thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 31 , 183–196.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (MEC), partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), code SEJ2006-15589-C02-01/EDUC. The authors are grateful to Glen Aikenhead for his valuable feedback on the first draft.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Didactica das Ciencias Experimentais, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre & Blanca Puig

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, West Australia, Australia

Barry J. Fraser

The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, New York, 10016-4309, New York, USA

Kenneth Tobin

Ctr. Mathematics & Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, 4059, Queensland, Australia

Campbell J. McRobbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, Evidence Evaluation and Critical Thinking. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_66

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_66

Published : 23 November 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-9040-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-9041-7

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.