Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes

Alfonso Hernández

doi:10.1007/s10503-023-09613-w

Argumentation Sep 2023 Open Access

Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes

Alfonso Hernández

Abstract

AbstractCritical questions have been understood in the framework of argument schemes from their conception. This understanding has influenced the process of evaluating arguments and the development of classifications. This paper argues that relating these two notions is detrimental to research on argument schemes and critical questions, and that it is possible to have critical questions without relying on argument schemes. Two objections are raised against the classical understanding of critical questions based on theoretical and analytical grounds. The theoretical objection presents the assumptions that are embedded in the idea of argument schemes delivering questions to evaluate arguments. The analytical objection, on the other hand, exposes the shortcomings of the theory when critical questions are used to evaluate real-life argumentation. After presenting these criticisms, a new theory of critical questions is sketched. This theory takes into account the dynamics of dialectical discussions to describe the function of critical questions and their implications for evaluating arguments.

Journal: Argumentation
Published: 2023-09-01
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09613-w
CompPile: Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access: OA PDF Hybrid
Topics: argument
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

Makuła (2025)

An Analogy-Based Approach to Argument Evaluation

Argumentation

Cites in this index (2)

Baumtrog (2021)

Designing Critical Questions for Argumentation Schemes

Argumentation
Yu et al. (2020)

Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation

Argumentation

Also cites 14 works outside this index ↓

Aristotle. 1926. The art of rhetoric (trans. Freese, J.H.). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

↗
C Dutilh Novaes (2020)

Dutilh Novaes, C. 2020. The role of trust in argumentation. Informal Logic 40(2): 205–236. https://doi.org/10…

Informal Logic ↗
JÁ Gascón (2016)

Gascón, J.Á. 2016. Virtue and arguers. Topoi 35(2): 441–450.

Topoi ↗
A Hernández (2021)

Hernández, A. 2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountabili…

Journal of Argumentation in Context ↗
M Hinton (2021)

Evaluating the language of argument

↗
H Marraud (2020)

From argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild

↗
E Rigotti (2019)

Inference in Argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes

↗
S Rubinelli (2009)

Ars topica: the classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero

↗
F Van Eemeren (2010)

Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse

↗
F Van Eemeren (2017)

Prototypical argumentative patterns

↗
F Van Eemeren (2018)

Argumentation theory: a pragma-dialectical perspective

↗
Wagemans, J. 2016. Constructing a periodic table of arguments. In Argumentation, objectivity, and bias: Proce…

↗
D Walton (2003)

Anyone who has a view. Argumentation library

↗
D Walton (2008)

Argumentation schemes

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 5 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

Cites in this index (2)

Related Articles