Argument types are examples. Main types of arguments

The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let's talk a little about why in general, from the position of critical thinking, it is necessary to be able to argue one's opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.

What is argumentation and why is it important

The term "argumentation" comes from the Latin word "argumentatio", which means "bringing arguments". This means that we give any arguments (arguments) in order to arouse confidence or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement put forward by us. The complex of such arguments is the argumentation.

The task of argumentation- make sure that the addressee accepts the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, and in everyday life, and in the legal, and in the political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of any situation, inclining people to accept the author's point of view, prompting reflection or action.

Argumentation is a phenomenon of a historical nature, and it changes over time. To express it, language means are used, for example, spoken or written statements. These statements, their interrelationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone's beliefs. It is also a social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he contacts. This implies a dialogue and an active reaction of the opposite side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor is assumed, and his ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept or challenge them.

It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with strong arguments, and eliminate misunderstanding. Competently reasoned judgments minimize doubts, speak about the veracity and seriousness of the put forward hypotheses, assumptions and statements. In addition, if a person is able to make strong arguments in his favor, this serves as an indicator that he has more than once critically evaluated all the information he has.

For the same reason, it is worth trusting only those information that can be adequately argued. This will mean that they are verified, proven and true (or at least an attempt was made to do so). Actually, this is the goal of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or refuting facts.

From all that has been said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, in order for teaching critical thinking to give a result, and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

The scope of the concept of "argumentation" is very deep. Considering that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and possession of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. At the same time, it must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.

The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:

Proposing a thesis - the formulation of one's position, proposal or opinion
Bringing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments through which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe or agree with you)
Demonstration - meaning the demonstration of the relationship of the thesis with the arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)

With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of the interlocutor. However, to achieve success, you need to follow a few important rules:

It is necessary to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts.
The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data is not established, then you do not need to use them until everything has been verified)
In the process of conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament.
All arguments must be valid; no personal attacks are allowed
It is recommended to refrain from using non-business statements that make it difficult to understand the information; it is better to operate with visual arguments; when covering negative information, its source must be indicated without fail

For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to find good arguments. But most often, if there is a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using the criteria for their evaluation:

Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
Effective arguments are always directly related to the subject of discussion. All other arguments must be excluded.
Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, it is necessary to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be for the addressee.

If you are sure that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves the development of the main methods of argumentation.

Basic argumentation methods

Argumentation theory proposes to use a lot of argumentation methods. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.

fundamental method

The meaning of the method is to directly address the person to whom you want to acquaint the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.

Of greatest importance here is numerical and statistical information, which serves as an ideal background for supporting arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

But one should not be too zealous in applying such information. Too many digits are tiring, and arguments lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.

EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that in the first year there were only two girls, and only one gave birth.

Ignore Method

Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is, if you can't disprove a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not of particular importance, you simply fix it and let it pass by.

contradiction method

For the most part, this method can be called defensive. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent's reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are unfounded, you will easily win.

EXAMPLE (the dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):

"- Perfectly! Rudin said. “So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?”

- No, it doesn't exist.

- Is that your belief?

How can you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

"Yes, but" method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Given that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method makes it possible to see and discuss alternative ways to solve the problem.

EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you have listed. However, you did not take into account some of the shortcomings ... ”(Further, the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented by arguments from a new position).

Comparison method

This method is highly efficient, because. makes the author's speech bright and impressive. Also, this method can be called one of the forms of the "drawing conclusions" method. Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. For reinforcement, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.

EXAMPLE: "Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens."

Boomerang Method

"Boomerang" allows you to use his own "weapon" against the opponent. The method lacks probative power, but despite this, it affects the listener in the most serious way, especially if wit is used.

EXAMPLE: During a speech by V. V. Mayakovsky to the residents of one of the Moscow districts about the solution of problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right?”.

Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks his question. For this reason, he kindly replied: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."

At the same time, two guys from the front row decided to make fun of: “And among the fools?”.

To this Mayakovsky replied: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

Partial argumentation method

One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly not true”, “this question can be looked at in different ways”, “this is for sure”, etc.

It is interesting that the well-known thesis serves as the basis of the method: if something dubious or unreliable can always be found in any argument and conclusion, then confident pressure on the interlocutor makes it possible to clarify even the most difficult situation.

EXAMPLE: “Everything that you told us about the principles of operation of wastewater treatment plants is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice, serious exceptions to the rules often have to be made” (The following are reasonable arguments in favor of your position).

Visible Support Method

Refers to the methods for which you need to prepare. You need to use it in situations where you are the opponent, for example, in a dispute. The essence of the method is as follows: suppose the interlocutor voiced his arguments to you about the problem under discussion, and the word goes to you. This is where the trick lies: at the beginning of your argument, you do not express anything in opposition to the words of your opponent; you even bring new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present with this.

But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It goes something like this: “But…. in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts ... (list these facts), and that’s not all, because ... ”(Your arguments and evidence follow).

Your ability to think critically and argue your position will be seriously developed, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this area, this will not be enough. To start moving forward, you need to explore other components of the argument. The first of these is the rules of reasoning.

Argumentation rules

The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them differs in a set of its own features. There are four of these rules:

Rule One

Use persuasive, precise, clear and simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments being made are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people catch and understand much less than they want to show.

Rule Two

It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:

Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together.
A few (three to five) strongest arguments are more powerful than many average facts.
Argumentation should not take the form of a "heroic" monologue or declaration
With the help of well-placed pauses, you can achieve a better result than with the help of a stream of words.
Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when evidence needs to be presented (for example, the phrase "we will do it" is much better than the phrase "it can be done", the word "conclude" is much better than the phrase "make a conclusion" etc.)

Rule Three

The argument must always look correct. It means:

If the person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may not be good for you.
If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, in the future try to use them.
Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to buy time or search for a thread of conversation (such phrases can be: “it was not said”, “you can do this and that”, “along with this”, “otherwise saying", "more or less", "as I said", etc.)

Rule Four

Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:

Build an argument, taking into account the motives and goals of the opponent
Remember that so-called "over-persuasiveness" can cause rejection on the part of the opponent.
Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue.
Strive for the most visual presentation of your evidence, considerations and ideas with examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. should be close and understandable to him
Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to distrust your opponent and not to question your entire argument.

Following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of the interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.

Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always takes place according to the "attacker - defender" scheme. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or the second position. Argumentation structures are formed according to this principle.

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:

Evidential argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone's statements and theses)

To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.

Argumentation techniques

Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques that will optimize your argument and make it more effective:

Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible, and deep.
visibility. Use familiar associations to the maximum and avoid abstract formulations.
Clarity. Link facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key points.
Orientation. When discussing something, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, having previously introduced them in general terms to the opponent.
Suddenness. Learn to link facts and details in an unusual and unexpected way, and practice using this technique.
Repetition. Focus the interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that the opponent perceives the information better.
Borders. Define the boundaries of reasoning in advance and do not reveal all the cards in order to maintain the liveliness of the conversation and the active attention of the interlocutor.
Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Don't forget to lower your emotionality as well to reinforce your opponent's thoughts and give him and yourself a little breather.
Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't be overbearing. It is best to act this way when you need to fend off the interlocutor's attacks or make arguments that are unpleasant for him.

With the use of these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which for the most part include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation Tactics

Mastering the tactics of argumentation is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to learn its basic provisions.

Using Arguments

Arguments must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are stated at any suitable moment, but it is better to do it constantly in a new place.

Choice of technique

Technique (methods) should be chosen taking into account the psychological characteristics of the opponent and your own.

avoidance of confrontation

In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a tense atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:

Critical questions are considered either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage.
Delicate questions are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the start of the conversation or discussion, because. tête-à-tête achieved much greater results than with witnesses
When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam”, communication continues.

Maintain interest

It is most effective to offer the interlocutor options and information to arouse his interest in the topic in advance. This means first describing the current state of affairs with an emphasis on the likely negative consequences, and then pointing out possible solutions and detailing their benefits.

Bilateral Argumentation

With it, you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.

Sequence of pros and cons

Based on the conclusions, the main formative influence on the position of the opponent is provided by such a presentation of information, where first the positive aspects are listed, and then the negative ones.

Personified Argumentation

It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of the interlocutor, and then insert it into your construction of the argument. In any case, one should try not to allow contradictory arguments of the opponent and one's own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly refer to your counterpart, for example:

What do you think about this?
You're right
How do you think this issue can be resolved?

When you recognize the correctness of the opponent and show attention to him, you will encourage him, which means that he will be more receptive to your argument.

Drawing conclusions

It happens that the argument is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to generalize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, it is imperative to independently draw conclusions and offer them to the interlocutor. Remember that the facts are not always obvious.

Counterargument

If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem to you impeccable, there is no need to panic. On the contrary, you should keep your cool and apply critical thinking:

Are the given facts correct?
Can this information be refuted?
Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
Are the proposed conclusions wrong (at least in part)?

The presented tactics can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information that you got acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this tutorial won't be complete unless we give a few more suggestions.

We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a small talk about persuasive arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of a person and a group of people.

A few persuasive arguments

What is persuasion? If you do not understand the mass of all kinds of interpretations and interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of such words that will incline a communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?

The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the standpoint of personal experience. If you try to get your point across to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. To put it simply, if you want to convince someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.

Referring to this, there are four main options for action when arguing:

Factual data. While statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for building the basis of an argument.
emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists Abraham Maslow said, people respond best when we turn to their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to hurt a person to the quick (naturally, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
Personal experience. Stories from one's own life and information verified by personal experience are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you yourself can see this for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “according to the textbook”, and then listen to someone who himself has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of listening to - this is the word "You". Everyone asks himself the question: “What is the use of this for me?”. Hence another one: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, contact him with the help of “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.

Surprisingly, these four simple techniques are not used in life and work by a huge number of people, in particular those who, for some reason, downplay the merits of personalization, appeal to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a gross mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should by no means allow it. Combine everything in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.

Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with many benefits in your family, daily, and professional life. But then again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we list most of the potential interference and give many interesting examples.

Do you want to test your knowledge?

If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how it suits you, you can take our test. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically proceeds to the next question.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

FIRST PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

in the Russian language and culture of speech on the topic:

Main types of arguments

Introduction

1. The concept of an argument

2. Boolean arguments

3. Psychological arguments

Conclusion

Literature

Additional sources

Introduction

In any dispute, the main thing is to correctly and logically prove your point of view. To prove means to establish the truth of a proposition. Distinguish between direct and indirect evidence. With direct proof, the thesis is substantiated by arguments without the help of additional constructions. When constructing a logical proof, the speaker needs to know and follow the rules for putting forward a thesis and arguments. For example, true positions, real facts, where such phenomena as approximation and inaccuracy are not allowed, should be used as arguments. The truth of the arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis. Arguments should be sufficient and weighty for this thesis. If these rules are violated, logical errors occur.

1. The concept of an argument

The goal of the speaker is to influence, to one degree or another, the interlocutor, the opponent. He must be able to convince of his innocence. To do this, it is necessary to use such words and expressions that can evoke certain feelings and thoughts. Emotional speech, expressive reasoning, illustrative examples in themselves can convince. You have to be able to prove and defend your point of view. To do this, you need to be sure of the veracity of a particular judgment, thesis. To be able to prove, you must be able to argue your arguments. Evidence is either direct or indirect. With direct evidence, arguments are given to support or refute certain statements.

From the foregoing, it follows that an argument (Latin argumentum from the verb arguo - I show, I find out, I prove - an argument, proof, conclusion) is a fragment of a statement containing a justification for a thought, the acceptability of which seems doubtful.

Simply put, an argument is a theoretical or factual position with which a thesis is substantiated.

To substantiate means to reduce a doubtful or controversial idea to an acceptable one for the audience. Acceptable can be a thought that the audience finds true or plausible, correct from the point of view of one or another norm, preferable from the point of view of their (and not the rhetor - the sender of the speech) values, goals or interests.

There are various classifications of arguments. The main classification is the one in which the arguments are divided into:

Ш logical (affecting the mind);

Ш psychological (affecting feelings).

This classification has been known since antiquity.

2. Boolean arguments

Logical arguments are arguments addressed to the mind of the audience, the listener. The consistency and logic of reasoning depend on how carefully the source material is selected and analyzed, how clearly the arguments are presented. Each thesis of the speech must be carefully argued, insufficiently strong, dubious arguments are excluded as destructive evidence.

Logical arguments include the following judgments:

l theoretical or empirical generalizations and conclusions;

l previously proven laws of sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, theorems of mathematics, etc.);

- obvious provisions that do not require proof: axioms and postulates;

l definitions of the basic concepts of a particular field of knowledge;

- statements of facts: factual material in which approximate information is unacceptable (statistical data on the population of the state, testimonies, signatures of a person on a document, scientific facts).

It should be noted the role of facts (including scientific ones), which is very important in proving and substantiating certain positions.

In the process of argumentation, it is necessary to separate the concepts of "fact" and "opinion".

A fact is an undoubted, real phenomenon, something that actually happened.

An opinion is something that expresses an assessment, one's own or someone else's view of an event or phenomenon. Facts exist on their own regardless of our desire, how we use them and relate to them. Opinions are influenced by various subjective factors, and they can also be biased and erroneous. And that is why facts are more reliable arguments that should be trusted and believed. One of the strongest arguments is the statistics. It’s hard to argue with numbers, but you can’t abuse them, as you can lose the attention of the audience. But the main thing is that these data reflect the real state of affairs.

3. Psychological arguments

argument dispute logical psychological

In a dispute between the speaker and the audience itself, psychological arguments also play an important role. If the speaker during the speech skillfully influences the feelings of the listeners, then his speech becomes more colorful and better remembered. With the help of psychological arguments, any feelings can be touched, which helps to achieve the desired result. This type of argument can be divided into the following subspecies: to self-esteem; from sympathy; argument from promise; from condemnation; from distrust; from doubt. When using psychological arguments, we must not forget that rhetorical ethics forbids the speaker to appeal to the base feelings of people, to evoke emotions that give rise to conflict between those discussing. It should be remembered that psychological arguments can be used as tricks and speculative devices.

Conclusion

Ways to influence the audience do not exist in isolation from each other. They are complementary to each other. Logical reflections, for example, can be reinforced by techniques that affect feelings, desires, etc. Both types of arguments are used consciously by a skilled speaker.

Arguing is an art. An experienced speaker does not rush forward, he studies the opponent's mistakes, but is in no hurry to take advantage of them. He tries to win over the audience with good and correct remarks, saving the main thing for the decisive part of the discussion. In a dispute, you should always have a clear idea of the subject of the dispute and leave the strongest arguments in reserve.

Literature

1. Zubkova A. Cribs on the Russian language and culture of speech. - ModernLib.Ru

2. Golovanova Daria, Mikhailova Ekaterina "Russian language and culture of speech"

Additional sources

3. http://www.modernlib.ru/books

4. http://knigosite.ru/library

5. http://genhis.philol.msu.ru

Featured on Allbest

Boolean Arguments

Logical methods of argumentation implement the speaker's logos, influence the rational sphere of the listeners' consciousness. Allocate:

argument-fact (to the point);
argument to experience;
argument to judgment;
proof by contradiction;
argument for meaning/value;
argument to composition;
argument to circumstances;
argument to reasons;
argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd);
argument to concession (argument rotation);
maneuver strategy;
return argument (boomerang reception);
argument for ignorance;
argument from silence.
1. Argument-fact (to the point) - an argument based on considerations concerning the substance of the subject. Such arguments are among the most influential because they are difficult to refute, like, for example, scientific axioms. In judicial practice, such arguments are experimentally confirmed conclusions, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and descriptions of physical evidence.

Witnesses claim that the victim was sober, that on the day of the incident he did not drink alcohol at all, or for about 6-8 hours. Before the incident, he drank about 100 grams of weak dry grape wine. However, these testimonies are not credible.

The materials of the case undeniably established that the victim was drunk, and very drunk. To establish the truth, science came to our aid. A photometric study revealed the presence of 2.55% ethyl alcohol in the victim's blood and 1.85% in the urine. Forensic expert Maslov testified in court that such a concentration of alcohol indicates a severe degree of intoxication To

2. Argument to experience - practical argument - worldly, private, or historical.

The profession of a doctor of any specialty is difficult, but perhaps the most difficult was and remains the profession of a surgeon.<.. .="">And over whom is the punishing sword of Themis most often raised? Practice shows that mainly representatives of those medical specialties that deal with radical surgical methods of treatment are brought to justice.

Notice, according to Smerdyakov, the money was under the bed, under the mattress; the defendant had to pull them out from under the mattress, and yet, the bed was not wrinkled at all, and this was carefully recorded in the protocol. How could the defendant not at all wrinkle anything in bed and, in addition, with his hands still bloodied, not soil the freshest, thin bed linen?

4. Proof by contradiction - an argument based on the analysis of an alternative assumption, after which a conclusion is made about its inconsistency. In court speeches it is used as a kind of refutation.

The court refers in the verdict to the expert's opinion, which states that if the driver had not maneuvered to the left, but applied braking or even moved without braking, the collision would not have occurred, since the pedestrian would have moved away from the car's lane at a distance of 5 m.

The starting point for such a conclusion? The pedestrian did not stay still, but ran. What if he continued to stand? Here is the conclusion of the expert in this case: “If Mikhailov had applied braking and the car would have moved in a straight line, and the pedestrian was standing, then the collision would still have occurred, since there was no technical possibility to stop the car. But in this case, there would be no violation of the Traffic Rules on the part of Mikhailov.

So, Mikhailov is guilty of the fact that he decided to save the pedestrian, and not to run over him "in accordance with all the rules" 1 .

5. Argument for meaning/value- an argument containing the definition of the subject of speech by including it in a wider area of content as a part, type, means, by comparing and contrasting, describing the functional, spatial, temporal or hierarchical framework. This establishes the value of this item (or its absence).

Should I sort out the rest of the evidence?<...>

But best of all - a clogged window ... What's the point in it? What was it used for arson? In fact, it turns out that the window was boarded up to prevent a fire, but a fire of a different nature - from the flame of passions, because it led to a secret place for dressing factory workers.

6. Argument to composition- an argument in the form of a coherent narrative depicting the action and giving it a description. In a judicial speech, this is one of the most important arguments underlying the proof of the degree of guilt of the defendant, since the assessment of his acts depends on the light in which they were presented.

An old worker, locksmith Semyonov will never forget that cold December day when he met an old acquaintance, respected, respected and, from his point of view, occupying a high position as chief accountant of the head office Lyubomudrov.

Acquaintance with Viktor Ivanovich Semenov appreciated, it seemed to him even flattering.

He will not forget this meeting.

Forever remain in the memory of Semyonov and the request with which Lyubomudrov turned to him. “Gavriil Borisovich,” he said, “our typist reprinted work for the institution that was not part of her duties, and paying her, a full-time typist, a thousand rubles over and above her salary is somehow inconvenient. Will you help? What do you doubt? After all, it's quite simple. I will write money on the account to your wife in her name, you will receive it with her power of attorney, give it to me, and I to the typist. That's how you get around the bureaucratic formalities,” he sighed.

Semyonov’s heart skipped a beat, his heart beat faster: “Is it good?” But then he changed his mind.

"What's the matter, after all? I'll get a thousand rubles, I'll give it back in full, and the typist won't lose hers. What's wrong with that? And no one asks, but Viktor Ivanovich ... "

Agreed...

This conversation, as if carved in stone, will not be erased from his memory.

As promised, he did.

Polina Alexandrovna, at the request of her husband, wrote an invoice and a power of attorney, and he, having received a thousand rubles from the power of attorney made by Lyubomudrov in the name of his wife, handed them over to Lyubomudrov.

"Thank you, Gavriil Borisovich." - "What are you, for nothing, Viktor Ivanovich."

And only much later, at the investigator's, did Semyonov find out that there was no job, no typist, that an old friend, venerable, respected chief accountant of the head office, Viktor Ivanovich Lyubomudrov, had deceived him and his wife.

“I couldn't believe it. It darkened in the eyes, the legs buckled, they became like cotton wool, ”Semenov recalled here.

Everything was as it was, the Semyonovs told the investigator, and he believed both that they had been deceived by Lyubomudrov and their disinterestedness.

7. Argument to circumstances - an argument that includes data about the situation that influenced the decision or act of the subject. In a judicial speech, circumstances are usually considered that limit the liability of the subject, or the impossibility of committing an act is indicated. Such circumstances are, for example, the absence of a person at the time and place of the crime (alibi), the incompetence or incompetence of the subject, the special state of the subject.

During the consideration of the criminal case in court, it was reliably established that Ivanov Pavel Sergeevich acquired drugs for citizen Samoenko and at his expense only with the aim of not being expelled from work in the future. Samoenko was his employer and, by virtue of his official position, could easily fire Ivanov from his job.

But, dear court, Ivanov has a young daughter at home, who, due to life circumstances, got into trouble and needed expensive treatment.

Only for this purpose Ivanov took the path of committing crimes.

Dear court, these circumstances were directly confirmed in the court session both by Samoenko himself, also by the testimony of his wife, Elena Ivanova, as well as by the testimony of the workers who worked together at the construction site.

And nothing else refuted this circumstance in the course of the court session by the side of the public prosecution.

8. Argument to the reasons - an argument that includes data about the intention of the subject (his motives), which consists in the intentional setting of a goal or in reaction to the current situation or the actions of other people. The task of the court orator is to clearly substantiate the responsibility of the defendant or achieve a reduction, or even a complete removal of responsibility from the defendant.

It was Volkov's behavior that created an abnormal situation in the family, gave rise to the psychological tension in which Vasilyeva and her stepmother were daily. They lived in constant fear, waiting for something irreparable to happen.<...>Women endured - after all, Volkov is a husband, after all, a father. But a feeling of despair grew in them, and this feeling is dangerous - it is not always powerless, sometimes it makes you take up arms!

The tragedy that occurred on February 11 was prepared by Volkov's behavior for a long time. If he had behaved differently, Vasilyeva's reaction would probably not have been so sharp. She was afraid of her father, she knew that anything could be expected from him, she was psychologically prepared for violence. Violence breeds violence!

9. Argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd)- proof impossibility or absurdities any assumptions, statements, actions.

The testimonies of Rudova and Kibalnikova are far more eloquent. Both are convinced that Pigolkin was killed by Pilipenko. Why? "And no one else."

Kibalnikova explains her position simply: Pigolkina once had several cats. And then this zoo disappeared somewhere. Where the cats disappeared, whether someone killed them or whether they themselves ran away from a hungry life, Kibalnikova does not know. She did not see Pilipenko carrying them anywhere, burying their mortal bodies or, moreover, killing them. Krutin and company, who lived in the same house, did not confirm Pilipenko's special hatred for animals. True, if there were cats, they disappeared even before Krutin, Levchenko and Gainov settled in this house. Maybe Kibalnikova is right. It seems that these cats annoyed the tenants. But the conclusion that Pilipenko dealt with the cats is based on nothing but neighborly assumptions. Moreover, Kibalnikova's testimony cannot serve as proof that Pilipenko killed Pigolkina.

10. Argument for concession (argument reversal)- an attempt to take someone at their word; the use of the observed contradiction in the words and (or) actions of the opponent.

In her very first testimony, she (Turkina), true to her manner of challenging the accusation, which no one had yet brought forward, began to assure: “I didn’t lure Berdnikov.”

Is it so? Let us recall once again the invention of Natalia Fedorovna about the death of her husband.<...>She realized that if anything could get Berdnikov through, then only one thing: sympathy for grief. I am burning, similar to what fell to his lot. Berdnikov will certainly sympathize, so to speak, with his "sister in misfortune." And, without bothering herself with various moral prohibitions, she “revealed” to Berdnikov: her grief is bitter, she buried her young husband, she is a widow, poor thing!

"To lure - did not lure," God forbid, but to invent that she is a widow and needs consolation in her widowhood - she invented it!

11. Strategy of maneuver(a kind of argument for concession) - recognition by the speaker (genuine or imaginary) of the position (views, moods) of the audience, opponent, supporting this position with some arguments, and then showing its inconsistency, convincing oneself of being right (according to the scheme “yes, you are right in ... but ... ").

The prosecutor sees only one thing in the sharp change in Berdnikov's attitude towards Turkina, in the reduction of her earnings and the deterioration of her working conditions - coercion to cohabitation.

Yes, there was everything: both a decrease in earnings and a deterioration in working conditions. But this is not all that can be put forward against Berdnikov. The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov was trying to get Turkina out of the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job.<.. .="">Recognizing that Berdnikov is surviving Turkin from the factory - and it is impossible not to admit it - the prosecutor understands that this means recognizing as established that Berdnikov deliberately deprived himself of the means of coercion (to cohabitation).

12. Reflexive argument (boomerang reception)- turning the evidence, argument or accusation of the opponent against him; the opponent's words are not refuted, he is accused of the same.

Here is the whole logic of the accusation: who killed if not him? There is no one, they say, to put in his place ... Therefore, the defendant and Smerdyakov remain, and now the accuser exclaims with pathos that the defendant points to Smerdyakov because he has no one else to point to ... But, gentlemen of the jury, why not I couldn't conclude quite the opposite? There are two people standing: the defendant and Smerdyakov - why shouldn't I say that you accuse my client solely because you have no one to accuse? one

13. Argument to ignorance- an indication of the opponent's lack of knowledge of the subject of speech and the protected position, as well as an emphasis on the fact that the asserted position is difficult or impossible to verify.

It had a detrimental effect on the entire course of the investigation, and especially on the consciousness of the relatives of the drowned, the conclusion of a young forensic expert who had little practical experience and conducted a study of the corpse, discovered 20 days after the incident. It was an erroneous conclusion that a hematoma of an intravital nature was found on the corpse, in the region of the left eye.<...>The formidable conclusion of an incompetent expert remained in the case. It created confidence among the victims that Ranov was the killer...<...>Highly qualified experts - candidates of medical sciences Shirman and Konin - convincingly showed the fallacy of the young expert's conclusion.

14. Argument from silence- evidence derived from the silence of the opponent or other persons: what was silent about may not be in favor of the opponent or the fact was not known to him.

The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov was trying to get Turkina out of the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job. Why did the prosecutor keep silent about this? After all, this should have caused the greatest anger of the accuser: a diligent worker is being rescued from the factory! Thunder! Brand! Bring down the accusation with all your might! But the accuser is silent. However, silence is not so mysterious. The more clearly Berdnikov's desire for Turkina to leave the factory is revealed, the less reason remains to accuse him of forcing cohabitation, using her official dependence. Indeed, with the departure of Turkina from the plant, her service dependence disappears, Berdnikov loses the only way to influence her

Introduction

The concept of an argument

Simply put, an argument is a theoretical or factual position with which a thesis is substantiated.

There are various classifications of arguments. The main classification is the one in which the arguments are divided into:

Ш logical (affecting the mind);

Ш psychological (affecting feelings).

This classification has been known since antiquity.

Boolean Arguments

Logical arguments include the following judgments:

l theoretical or empirical generalizations and conclusions;

l previously proven laws of sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, theorems of mathematics, etc.);

- obvious provisions that do not require proof: axioms and postulates;

l definitions of the basic concepts of a particular field of knowledge;

It should be noted the role of facts (including scientific ones), which is very important in proving and substantiating certain positions.

In the process of argumentation, it is necessary to separate the concepts of "fact" and "opinion".

A fact is an undoubted, real phenomenon, something that actually happened.

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through a series of logical reasoning; that is, claims based, firmly or not, on premises. It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. She studies the rules of inference, logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.

Argumentation includes debate and negotiation to reach mutually acceptable conclusions. It also covers eristics, a branch of public debate in which victory over a rival is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people defend their beliefs or personal interests in rational dialogue, in vernacular, and in the process of argument.

Reasoning is used in law, for example, in research, in preparing arguments to be presented in court, and in testing the soundness of certain types of evidence. In addition, scholars study post hoc rationalizations, in which organizational actors try to justify decisions they made irrationally.

Key Components of Argumentation

The ability to understand and identify the explicit or implied arguments and goals of participants in various types of communication
Identification of the premises from which the conclusions are drawn
Establishing the "burden of proof" - determining who made the original statement, and thus is responsible for providing evidence why his/her position deserves recognition.
To convince the opponent that you are right, you must provide weighty arguments in favor of your position. The method by which this is achieved is by finding reasonable, sounding and convincing arguments that do not have flaws that are not easy to refute.
In a discussion, the fulfillment of the "burden of proof" creates the "burden of objection". The opponent attempts to find inaccuracies in the arguments in order to refute them, to provide counterexamples if possible, to expose any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be drawn from the reasoning provided by the burden of proof's arguments.

The internal structure of the argument

Usually, the argumentation has an internal structure, including the following points:

set of assumptions or premises (thesis)
method of reasoning or logic (arguments)
conclusion or summary (demo)

An argument must have at least two premises and one conclusion.

In its most common form, argumentation involves the interlocutor and/or opponent participating in a dialogue where each disputant defends his position and tries to convince the other. Other types of dialogue, besides persuasion, are the art of controversy, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, discussion, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of the Socratic method, the critical interrogation of various characters and historical figures.

Argumentation and the foundations of knowledge

The theory of argumentation has its origins in fundamentalism, in the theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. She sought to find grounds for claims in the logic and actual laws of the universal system of knowledge. But the arguments of scientists gradually rejected the systematic philosophy of Aristotle and the idealism of Plato and Kant. They questioned, and eventually abandoned, the idea that the premises of an argument derive their validity from formal philosophical systems. And so the field expanded.

Types of argumentation

Conversational Argument

The study of the nature of conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is commonly referred to as conversion analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, mainly by the sociologist Harvey Sachs and, in particular, by his close associates Emanuel Scheglof and Gail Jefferson. Sachs died early in his career, but his work was carried on and conversational reasoning gained acceptance in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology. It is particularly influential in integrative sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, and is a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently, the methods of sequential analysis of colloquial argumentation have been used to investigate the subtle details of phonetic speech.

The empirical research and theoretical formulations of Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within contexts and communication systems that agreement naturally favors.

Mathematical reasoning

The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of much debate. Frege, in particular, sought to demonstrate (see Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Logicism in the Philosophy of Mathematics) that arithmetic truths can be deduced from purely logical axioms and therefore, after all, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be given as propositions in symbolic logic, then it can be verified by applying recognized proof procedures. This work was carried out for arithmetic using Peano's axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid only if it can be shown that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Scientific reasoning

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social foundations of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G. Gross's The Rhetoric of Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). Gross believes that science is rhetorical "without a trace", which means that scientific knowledge in itself cannot be considered as an idealized basis of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is generated rhetorically, which means that it has special epistemic power only insofar as its communal methods of verification can be trusted. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the fundamentalism upon which the argument was first based.

Explanatory reasoning

Explanatory reasoning is a dialogical process in which participants explore and/or resolve interpretations often in the text of any medium containing significant differences in interpretation.

Explanatory reasoning is relevant to the humanities, hermeneutics, literary theory, linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, semiotics, analytic philosophy, and aesthetics. Topics in conceptual interpretation include aesthetic, judicial, logical and religious interpretations. Topics in scientific interpretation include scientific modeling.

Legal reasoning

Legal arguments are heard in the speech of a lawyer in court or in the speech of the court of appeal, or in the presentation of parties representing themselves and justifying legally why they should prevail. An oral argument at the appellate level is accompanied by a note, which is also argued in advance by each of the parties to the legal dispute. The final argument is the closing statement of each party's lawyer, repeating the important arguments in the case. The closing speech is given after the evidence has been presented.

Political reasoning

Political arguments are used by academics, media professionals, candidates for political office, and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary relationships to comment on and understand political events. The rationality of the public is one of the main questions in this line of research. Political scientist Samuel L. Popkin coined the term "low-informed voter" to describe the majority of voters who know very little about politics or the world at large.

Psychological aspects

Contribution by Stephen E. Toulmin

By far the most influential theorist was Stephen Toulmin, who was educated as a philosopher at Cambridge as a student of Wittgenstein. What follows is a sketch of his ideas.

An alternative to absolutism and relativism

Toulmin argued that absolutism (in the face of theoretical or analytical arguments) was of limited practical value. Absolutism comes from Plato's idealized formal logic, which stands for universal truth. Thus, it is believed that the moral issues of absolutism can be resolved by adhering to standard sets of moral principles, regardless of context. On the contrary, Toulmin argues that many of these so-called standard principles are not relevant to the real situation that a person encounters in everyday life.

To describe his vision of everyday life, Toulmin introduced the concept of a field argument. In Ways to Use Argumentation (1958), Toulmin argues that some aspects of an argument differ from field to field and are hence called "field-dependent", while other aspects of an argument are the same for all fields and are called "field-invariant". ". According to Toulmin, the disadvantage of absolutism lies in its ignorance of the "invariant" aspect of the argument, absolutism admits that all aspects of the argument are "field-dependent".

Recognizing the omissions inherent in absolutism, Toulmin in his theory avoids the shortcomings of absolutism by not resorting to relativism, which, in his opinion, does not provide grounds for separating moral and immoral arguments. In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin argues that anthropologists were swayed to the side of relativists because they were the ones who drew attention to the impact of cultural change on rational reasoning, in other words, anthropologists and relativists put too much emphasis on the importance of the "field-dependent" aspect of reasoning. , and are unaware of the existence of an "invariant" aspect. In an attempt to solve the problems of absolutists and relativists, Toulmin in his work develops standards that are neither absolutist nor relativistic and will serve to assess the value of ideas.

Toulmin believes that a good argument can be successful in verification and will be resistant to criticism.

Argument Components

In Ways to Use Argumentation (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for argument analysis:

Approval: Approval must be complete. For example, if a person tries to convince the listener that he is a British citizen, then his statement will be "I am a British citizen" (1)
Data: Facts that are cited as the basis for a statement. For example, a person in the first situation can support his statement with other data "I was born in Bermuda" (2)
Reasons: A statement that allows you to move from the evidence (2) to the statement (1). In order to move from evidence (2) "I was born in Bermuda" to the statement (1) "I am a British citizen" a person must use grounds to bridge the gap between statement (1) and evidence (2) by stating that "A person born in Bermuda can legally be a British citizen."
Support: Additions aimed at confirming the statement expressed in the grounds. Support should be used when reasons alone are not convincing enough for readers and listeners.
Rebuttal / Counterarguments: A statement showing the limitations that may apply. An example of a counterargument would be: "A person born in Bermuda can legally be a British citizen only if he has not betrayed Britain and is not a spy for another country."
Qualifier: Words and phrases expressing the author's degree of confidence in his statement. These are value judgments such as "probably", "possibly", "impossible", "certainly", "presumably" or "always". The statement "I am definitely a British citizen" carries a much greater degree of certainty than the statement "I am presumably a British citizen".

The first three elements, 'assertion', 'evidence' and 'reasons', are seen as the main components of practical argumentation, while the last three 'qualifier', 'support' and 'refutations' are not always necessary.

Toulmin did not expect this scheme to be applied in the field of rhetoric and communication, since originally this argumentation scheme was to be used to analyze the rationality of arguments, usually in a courtroom; in fact, Toulmin had no idea that this scheme would apply to the field of Rhetoric and Communication until his work was introduced by Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger. Only after posting Introduction to reasoning(1979) this scheme has gained acceptance.

evolutionary model

In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin argues that the development of science is an evolutionary process. This book criticizes Thomas Kuhn's point of view regarding the conceptual change in the structure of scientific revolutions. Kuhn believed that conceptual change is a revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) process in which mutually exclusive paradigms compete with each other. Toulmin was critical of Kuhn's relativistic ideas and was of the opinion that mutually exclusive paradigms do not provide a basis for comparison, in other words, Kuhn's statement is a relativist error, and it consists in excessive attention to the "field - dependent" aspects of the argument, while simultaneously ignoring, "field - invariant or the commonality shared by all arguments (scientific paradigms).

Toulmin proposes an evolutionary model of conceptual development comparable to Darwin's model of biological evolution. Based on this reasoning, conceptual development includes innovation and choice. Innovation means the emergence of many variants of theories, and selection means the survival of the most stable of these theories. Innovation occurs when professionals in a particular field begin to perceive familiar things in a new way, not as they were perceived by their predecessors; selection exposes innovative theories to a process of discussion and exploration. The strongest theories that have been discussed and researched will take the place of traditional theories, or additions will be made to traditional theories.

From the point of view of absolutists, theories can be either reliable or unreliable, regardless of the context. From the point of view of relativists, one theory can neither be better nor worse than another theory from a different cultural context. Toulmin is of the opinion that evolution depends on a process of comparison that determines whether a theory will be able to improve standards better than another theory can.

Portal for the student. Self-training

What is argumentation and why is it important

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

Basic argumentation methods

fundamental method

Ignore Method

contradiction method

"Yes, but" method

Comparison method

Boomerang Method

Partial argumentation method

Visible Support Method

Argumentation rules

Rule One

Rule Two

Rule Three

Rule Four

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

Argumentation techniques

Argumentation Tactics

Using Arguments

Choice of technique

avoidance of confrontation

Maintain interest

Bilateral Argumentation

Sequence of pros and cons

Personified Argumentation

Drawing conclusions

Counterargument

A few persuasive arguments

Do you want to test your knowledge?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Boolean Arguments

Introduction

The concept of an argument

Boolean Arguments

Key Components of Argumentation

The internal structure of the argument

Argumentation and the foundations of knowledge

Types of argumentation

Conversational Argument

Mathematical reasoning

Scientific reasoning

Explanatory reasoning

Legal reasoning

Political reasoning

Psychological aspects

Contribution by Stephen E. Toulmin

An alternative to absolutism and relativism

Argument Components

evolutionary model

RELATED ARTICLES