Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation

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.

Download Full-text

Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation

10.1515/9783110859249 ◽

1987 ◽

Cited By ~ 93

Author(s):

Trudy Govier

Keyword(s):

Argument Analysis ◽

Analysis And Evaluation

Download Full-text

A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v32i1.3332 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Lilian Bermejo-Luque

Keyword(s):

Argument Analysis ◽

Analysis And Evaluation ◽

Inductive Types

Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a general unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments. This schema is able to explain why certain analogical arguments can be said to be deductive, and yet, also defeasible.

Download Full-text

Libri ad Nauseam: The Critical Thinking Textbook Glut

Paideusis ◽

10.7202/1071573ar ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 39-48

Author(s):

Benjamin Hamby

Keyword(s):

Critical Thinking ◽

Informal Logic ◽

Theoretical Understanding ◽

Argument Analysis ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Analysis And Evaluation ◽

Thinking Dispositions ◽

Critical Thinking Dispositions

Critical thinking instructors are faced with an overwhelming number of textbooks to choose from for their courses. Many of these texts do not reflect an awareness of current scholarship in critical thinking and informal logic. I argue that instructors should only adopt textbooks that reflect a sound theoretical understanding of the topic by acknowledging the central role of critical thinking dispositions, offering a more nuanced approach to the teaching of fallacies and of inference, stressing dialectic and argument revision, focusing on the analysis and evaluation of real arguments, and broadening the scope of critical thinking beyond argument analysis and evaluation. To support instructors in this regard, I critique one popular textbook now in its sixth edition that does not satisfy many of these criteria, Munson and Black (2012), and applaud one new textbook that I find does succeed on many of these fronts, Bailin and Battersby (2010).

Download Full-text

From text to scheme

International Review of Pragmatics ◽

10.1163/18773109-201810015 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 109-136 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Douglas Walton ◽

Marcin Koszowy

Keyword(s):

Expert Opinion ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Argument Analysis ◽

Analysis And Evaluation ◽

Linguistic Cues ◽

Common Problems ◽

Argument From Expert Opinion

Abstract We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.

Download Full-text

Govier's "Invention" of the Theory of Argument

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v33i2.3890 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 33 (2) ◽

pp. 98

Author(s):

Ralph H. Johnson

Keyword(s):

Argument Analysis ◽

Analysis And Evaluation ◽

The Subject

In this paper, I propose that the inquiry known as a/the theory of argument is the “invention” of Trudy Govier, using that term in its rhetorical sense, viz., the process of choosing ideas appropriate to the subject. In her (1987) paper, “Is a Theory of Argument Possible?” Govier used the idea of theory of argument to focus her discussion on problems in argument analysis and evaluation that came to light in the 1970s and 1980s. The idea of a theory of argument was already there but Govier “discovered” it in the sense that she made its potential clear.

Download Full-text