Text vs. Graphs in Argument Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Carneiro ◽  
Alice Toniolo ◽  
Miguel A. Ncenta ◽  
Aaron J. Quigley
Keyword(s):  
Argument Analysis

scholarly journals Informal Logic’s Influence on Philosophy Instruction

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 259 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Anthony Blair
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Limited Impact ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
Impact On Instruction ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Theoretical Developments

Informal logic began in the 1970s as a critique of then-current theoretical assumptions in the teaching of argument analysis and evaluation in philosophy departments in the U.S. and Canada. The last 35 years have seen significant developments in informal logic and critical thinking theory. The paper is a pilot study of the influence of these advances in theory on what is taught in courses on argument analysis and critical thinking in U.S. and Canadian philosophy departments. Its finding, provisional and much-qualified, is that the theoretical developments and refinements have had limited impact on instruction in leading philosophy departments.

A corpus for argument analysis of academic writing: argumentative paragraph detection

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 4565-4577
Author(s):  
Jesús Miguel Garcia-Gorrostieta ◽  
Aurelio López-López
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Argument Analysis

scholarly journals Deep Uncertainty, Public Reason, the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Regulation of Markets for Lion Skeletons

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 5085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Coals ◽  
Dawn Burnham ◽  
Paul J. Johnson ◽  
Andrew Loveridge ◽  
David W. Macdonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Formal Concept ◽  
Deep Uncertainty ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Ethical Argument ◽  
Public Reasoning ◽  
Relative Value ◽  
Single Argument

Public reason is a formal concept in political theory. There is a need to better understand how public reason might be elicited in making public decisions that involve deep uncertainty, which arises from pernicious and gross ignorance about how a system works, the boundaries of a system, and the relative value (or disvalue) of various possible outcomes. This article is the third in a series to demonstrate how ethical argument analysis—a qualitative decision-making aid—may be used to elicit public reason in the presence of deep uncertainty. The first article demonstrated how argument analysis is capable of probing deep into a single argument. The second article demonstrated how argument analysis can analyze a broad set of arguments and how argument analysis can be operationalized for use as a decision-making aid. This article demonstrates (i) the relevance of argument analysis to public reasoning, (ii) the relevance of argument analysis for decision-making under deep uncertainty, an emerging direction in decision theory, and (iii) how deep uncertainty can arise when the boundary between facts and values is inescapably entangled. This article and the previous two make these demonstrations using, as an example, the conservation and sustainable use of lions.

scholarly journals Partial and Local Argument Properties of Holomorphic and Meromorphic Complex Functions in Several Variables

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jun Zhou ◽  
Zhaoxia Duan
Keyword(s):  
Cauchy Integral ◽  
Argument Principle ◽  
General Argument ◽  
Numerical Examples ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Several Variables ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Complex Functions ◽  
Variable Domains ◽  
Integral Contour

The study describes a general argument analysis technique for holomorphic and meromorphic complex functions in several variables, or simply n-variable complex functions with n≥2. Argument analytic relationships for n-variable complex functions with significance similar to the argument principle for one-variable ones are retrieved partially and locally. More precisely, argument analysis in n-variable complex functions is carried out one-by-one in terms of each and all variables, namely, partially, so that argument-principle-like relations are established in poly-disc neighborhoods of the variable domains, namely locally. The technique is applicable graphically with loci plotting, independent of Cauchy integral contour and locus orientations; it is also numerically tractable without loci plotting via argument incremental integration. Numerical examples are included to illustrate the main results.

scholarly journals Representing and classifying arguments on the Semantic Web

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iyad Rahwan ◽  
Bita Banihashemi ◽  
Chris Reed ◽  
Douglas Walton ◽  
Sherief Abdallah
Keyword(s):  
Automated Reasoning ◽  
Description Logic ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Ontology Language ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Interchange Format ◽  
Web Based System

AbstractUntil recently, little work has been dedicated to the representation and interchange of informal, semi-structured arguments of the type found in natural language prose and dialogue. To redress this, the research community recently initiated work towards an Argument Interchange Format (AIF). The AIF aims to facilitate the exchange of semi-structured arguments among different argument analysis and argumentation-support tools. In this paper, we present a Description Logic ontology for annotating arguments, based on a new reification of the AIF and founded in Walton's theory of argumentation schemes. We demonstrate how this ontology enables a new kind of automated reasoning over argument structures, which complements classical reasoning about argument acceptability. In particular, Web Ontology Language reasoning enables significantly enhanced querying of arguments through automatic scheme classifications, instance classification, inference of indirect support in chained argument structures, and inference of critical questions. We present the implementation of a pilot Web-based system for authoring and querying argument structures using the proposed ontology.

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control

2014 ◽  
pp. 410-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Vucetich ◽  
Michael P. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Predator Control ◽  
Basic Tool ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
A Value

A basic tool of scholarly ethics is argument analysis—the process of evaluating the soundness of the premises and the validity of arguments that underlie a particular ethical claim. We apply that technique to the controversial concern about the appropriateness of hunting wolves. Advocates of wolf hunting offer a variety of reasons that it is appropriate. We inspect the quality of these reasons using the principles of argument analysis. Our application of this technique indicates that wolf hunting in the coterminous United States is inappropriate. A value of argument analysis for public discourse is its transparency. If we have misapplied the principles of argument analysis, critics will readily be able to identify our error. While this particular application of argument analysis is contingent on details particular to wolves and the desire to hunt them, this essay has the addition value of illustrating one of the basic tools used in scholarly ethics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document