Argumentation Dec 2020 Open Access

Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation

Shiyang Yu Nankai University ; Frank Zenker Warsaw University of Technology

Abstract

AbstractAccording to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions (CQs) relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise(s); if premise(s), then conclusion; so conclusion’, we forward a meta-level CQ-list that is arguably both complete and applicable. This list should inform ongoing theoretical efforts at generating appropriate object-level CQs for specific argument schemes.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2020-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-020-09512-4
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
argument assessment
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (8)

  1. Friberg-Fernros et al. (2025)
    Can People be Made More Rational? Testing Whether People’s Ability to Assess Ar…
    Argumentation
  2. Makuła (2025)
    An Analogy-Based Approach to Argument Evaluation
    Argumentation
  3. Araszkiewicz et al. (2024)
    The Structure of Arguments from Deontic Authority and How to Successfully Attack Them
    Argumentation
  4. Zenker et al. (2024)
    Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation
    Argumentation
  5. Larson et al. (2023)
    Reconceiving Argument Schemes as Descriptive and Practically Normative
    Argumentation
Show all 8 →
  1. Hernández (2023)
    Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes
    Argumentation
  2. Zenker et al. (2023)
    Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions
    Argumentation
  3. Baumtrog (2021)
    Designing Critical Questions for Argumentation Schemes
    Argumentation

Cites in this index (14)

  1. Yu et al. (2018)
    Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abducti…
    Argumentation
  2. Marraud (2018)
    Arguments from Ostension
    Argumentation
  3. Hoffmann (2018)
    The Elusive Notion of “Argument Quality”
    Argumentation
  4. Macagno et al. (2017)
    Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions
    Argumentation
  5. Hoffmann (2016)
    Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing
    Argumentation
Show all 14 →
  1. Walton (2016)
    Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction
    Argumentation
  2. Eemeren (2016)
    Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-D…
    Argumentation
  3. Walton et al. (2014)
    Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning
    Argumentation
  4. Walton et al. (2013)
    Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes
    Argumentation
  5. Rapp et al. (2013)
    On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory
    Argumentation
  6. Rigotti et al. (2010)
    Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Ar…
    Argumentation
  7. Prakken (2005)
    AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes
    Argumentation
  8. Blair (2001)
    Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development
    Argumentation
  9. Rees (2001)
    Ralph H. Johnson (2000), Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument
    Argumentation
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. P Besnard (2008)
    Elements of argumentation
     ↗
  2. A Bondarenko (1997)
    Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to def…
    Artificial Intelligence  ↗
  3. P Bondy (2010)
    Bondy, P. 2010. Truth and argument evaluation. Informal Logic 30: 142–158.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  4. R Ennis (1982)
    Ennis, R. 1982. Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51: 61–86.
    Synthese  ↗
  5. JB Freeman (1985)
    Freeman, J.B. 1985. Dialectical situations and argument analysis. Informal Logic 7: 151–162.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  6. JB Freeman (1991)
    Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure
     ↗
  7. D Godden (2018)
    Godden, D., and F. Zenker. 2018. A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese 195: 1715–1740.
    Synthese  ↗
  8. GT Goodnight (1993)
    Goodnight, G.T. 1993. Legitimation inferences: An additional component for the Toulmin model. Informal Logic …
    Informal Logic  ↗
  9. J Gough (1985)
    Gough, J., and C. Tindale. 1985. ‘Hidden’ or ‘missing’ premises. Informal Logic 7: 99–106.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  10. W Grennan (1997)
    Informal logic: Issues and techniques
     ↗
  11. U Hahn (2016)
    Hahn, U., and J. Hornikx. 2016. A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Baye…
    Synthese  ↗
  12. D Hitchcock (2003)
    Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation
     ↗
  13. D Hitchcock (2017)
    On reasoning and argument: Essays in Informal Logic and Critical Thinking
     ↗
  14. DL Hitchcock (2011)
    Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics
     ↗
  15. A Peczenik (2009)
    On law and reason
     ↗
  16. JL Pollock (1987)
    Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive Science  ↗
  17. JL Pollock (1995)
    Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person
     ↗
  18. E Rigotti (2009)
    Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices
     ↗
  19. C Tindale (2007)
    Fallacies and argument appraisal
     ↗
  20. FH van Eemeren (2018)
    Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective
     ↗
  21. FH van Eemeren (2014)
    Handbook of argumentation theory
     ↗
  22. B Verheij (2003)
    Verheij, B. 2003. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificia…
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  ↗
  23. G Vreeswijk (1997)
    Vreeswijk, G. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90: 225–279.
    Artificial Intelligence  ↗
  24. JHM Wagemans (2019)
    Wagemans, J.H.M. 2019. Four basic argument forms. Research in Language 17: 57–69.
    Research in Language  ↗
  25. D Walton (2008)
    Argumentation schemes
     ↗
  26. S Yu (2019)
    Yu, S., and F. Zenker. 2019. A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinat…
    Informal Logic  ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 24 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Argumentation Mar 2026
    Experimental Insights into the Influence of Logic and Pragmatics on Conditional Argument Evaluation ↗
    Ermioni Seremeta; Monique Flecken; Menno Reijven; Jean Wagemans
    discourse analysis argument assessment
  2. Written Communication Feb 2026
    Stance in REF Submissions: Authorial Positioning in Impact Narratives ↗
    Ken Hyland; Feng (Kevin) Jiang
    rhetorical criticism genre theory argument assessment
  3. Assessing Writing Jan 2026
    The effects of online resource use on L2 learners’ computer-mediated writing processes and written products ↗
    Honglan Wang; Jookyoung Jung
    revision argument assessment digital rhetoric multilingual writers grammar and mechanics affect and writing
  4. Assessing Writing Jan 2026
    How reliable and valid is peer evaluation in adolescents’ L2 argumentative writing? ↗
    Albert W. Li; Steve Graham
    writing pedagogy teacher development argument assessment multilingual writers grammar and mechanics literacy studies
  5. Argumentation Oct 2025
    Finding the Missing Link: An Algorithmic Approach to Reconstructing Enthymemes ↗
    Ameer Saadat-Yazdi; Jean H. M. Wagemans
    discourse analysis argument assessment