Practical arguments GudangMovies21 Rebahinxxi LK21

      Practical arguments are a logical structure used to determine the validity or dependencies of a claim made in natural-language arguments.


      Overview...


      An argument can be thought of as two or more contradicting tree structures.

      The root of each tree is a claim: a belief supported by information.
      The root branches out to nodes that are grounds: supporting information.
      The edges connecting them are warrants: rules or principles.
      Claims, grounds and warrants are often not known for certain, so they are presented with a qualifier to indicate their probability.
      When a ground is disputable it is a sub claim; in this way the tree can grow to be quite large.
      The object of a discussion is often to resolve a difference of opinion. This requires common grounds from which to logically convince one's opponent that one's claim is better supported and that the opponent's claim is supported by false grounds and or warrants (see Occam's razor). If one has no grounds or warrants to support one's claim, then one has no argument, just a belief/claim, perhaps an inaccurate one.


      Example 1


      Claim: Cats are less intelligent than dogs.
      Ground: Cats cannot learn to do tricks as well as dogs do.
      Warrant: The ability to learn tricks is a mark of intelligence.


      Example 2


      Where: C=claim, W=warrant, G=ground, and Q=qualifier

      C: Humans can't fly.
      Q: In a gravity field without assistance or modification
      W1: Because it defies the laws of Newtonian physics it can not be done.
      Q: Fact
      G1: It defies the laws of Newtonian physics.
      Q: Disputable fact
      W1.1: Because Newtonian physics applies it would defy the laws of Newtonian physics.
      Q: Fact
      G1.1: Newtonian physics apply to all super quantum systems including people
      Q: Fact
      W1.2: Because there is no print record it is highly improbable.
      Q: Highly improbable
      G1.2: There is no print record of any reputable person claiming such a thing.
      Q: Fact
      W2: Because no one has ever flown, it is highly improbable.
      Q: Highly improbable
      G2: No one has ever flown.
      Q: Disputable fact
      W2.1: Because there is no print record it is highly improbable.
      Q: Highly improbable
      G2.1: There is no print record of any reputable person claiming such a thing.
      Q: Fact


      See also


      Argument map
      Argumentation framework
      Logical argument
      Toulmin model of argument


      References


      Printed:
      Writing Arguments by John D. Ramage
      The Craft of Research by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, & Joseph M. Williams
      Online
      About Argumentation by University of California
      Argumentation by Winthrop University

    Kata Kunci Pencarian: practical arguments

    practical argumentspractical argument short 5th edition by kirszner and mandellpractical argument 5th editionprinciple vs practical argumentsprinciple and practical argumentstheoretical and practical arguments for values-centered preservation