AbstractThe representation and classification of the structure of natural arguments has been one of the most important aspects of Aristotelian and medieval dialectical and rhetorical theories. This traditional approach is represented nowadays in models of argumentation schemes. The purpose of this article is to show how arguments are characterized by a complex combination of two levels of abstraction, namely, semantic relations and types of reasoning, and to provide an effective and comprehensive classification system for this matrix of semantic and quasilogical connections. To this purpose, we propose a dichotomous criterion of classification, transcending both levels of abstraction and representing not what an argument is but how it is understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means criterion, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.

Research Article| January 01 2009 Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories Fabrizio Macagno; Fabrizio Macagno Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Douglas Walton Douglas Walton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (2): 154–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655348 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton; Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (2): 154–182. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655348 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.