4.7 ~ Argumentation Clinic & Fundamentals of Informal Logic

The term argumentation has a bad wrap. If someone says, “we got into an argument” or a mother says to her child, “Don’t argue with me!” it's suggested that arguments are unpleasant, adversarial affairs, filled with anger or perhaps even obstinate refusal to hear the other side.

For much of the term’s history, though, argument was viewed as a type of dialogue. This lecture uses the term “argument” quite differently than the understanding outlined above; let’s think of argumentation as a fundamentally a cooperative affair. In addition to taking a more positive view of argument, where we respectfully investigate and question positions with informal logic, let’s get some basics down:

Distinction between formal & informal logic:

• formal reasoning involves a set of symbols and is heavily involved with mathematics; it is much more strict and formulaic
• informal reasoning is that we use in everyday conversation; it’s fast and somewhat loose logic, but that which we operate with on a daily basis.

Some key aspects of argumentation:

• takes place under conditions of uncertainty (we’re not sure what to do, what to make of it, or what meaning to ascribe to it)
• moves from what is know to unknown (builds on strong-enough probabilities to guide us further
• involves a justification for claims
• often involves dialectical reasoning, which can be loosely translated as “a thesis meets an antithesis and forms a synthesis; that synthesis is a new thesis that meets an antithesis and so on.” More informally, many consider dialectic to mean the principled back and forth involved with a productive question-and-answer session

One definition of argumentation could be “the exercise of reason giving.” (This is a favorite of David Zarefsky, professor of Communication at Northwestern University.)


Or, if you listened closely to the Monty Python skit, another way to define argumentation is: “a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition—it’s an intellectual process.” The implicit point here is that of inference: the process of affirming one proposition on the basis of other propositions. Because we’re working with probability, an inference partly implies a leap of faith in moving from one proposition to another.

Another definition: argumentation is the combination of justifications with claims within rhetorical situations.

Justifications are:

• different from proof (in the formal, mathematical sense)
• particular to an audience (what works some might not for others, depending on many factors such as cultural values, education level, etc.)
• provisional and subject to change (in light of new information or arguments)
• based on degrees of strength, ranging from plausible to highly probable

Now, before we say anything else, a disclaimer on argument models: thy are frequently used in teaching logic, but they often seem weak, unusable, or boring. This may be because argument models are instruments that are most helpful in identifying and analyzing arguments and their components—not necessarily in constructing them. They “abstract out” a lot of features of everyday, lived discourse (facial cues, body language, intonation, emphasis, etc.), in addition to suggesting linearity in an argument’s progress—running directly and smoothly from evidence to claim. Obviously, this runs counter to many of our experiences. So, argument models have their place and use; but understanding their fundamentals can really help you make connections and see the logic in everyday arguments more easily.

In classical understanding, there are two primary types of reasoning: deduction and induction.

Deduction’s etymology means, “to lead down” (think about when you “deduct” numbers and connect that to “deducing something”).

The syllogism is a key model within deduction: Major premise + minor premise => Conclusion/Claim.

In categorical syllogisms this is demonstrated as: Class => sub-class => particular

EX: All men are mortal; Keith Richards is a man; Keith Richards is mortal.
Now with cues: (Because) all men are mortal (and since) Keith Richards is a man (then therefore) he’s mortal.

(thanks to Dr. Wheeler and his helpful website for this chart)

Induction’s etymology means, “to lead into” and can be understood as the movement from particulars to generalizations, or “inducing the universal from the particular.” This form of reasoning takes a variety of experiences, evaluates the relationship between them and makes a generalization based on this. A lot of scientific reasoning is a highly formalized and rigorous type of inductive reasoning. A lot of everyday reasoning (and a lot of our fallacious reasoning) is based on this form: “I’ve known people like her and I can tell you that __________,” could be considered a loose version of the inductive process. In this case a set of particulars gather from observations were joined together to make a generalization on which further propositions were made.

The enthymeme is typically defined as “in the mind,” but more accurately it is translated as “in the spirit,” which the Greeks located in the gut. The enthymeme is a syllogism with some parts missing—a string of logic in which aspects are elided, assumed, or asked to be filled in by the audience.

Take the general form of reasoning: Because Z and because Y, then therefore X. Many times people only offer one reason for their claim: “Y, therefore X.” They may not offer up evidence or reasoning for “Y,” either because it’s obvious or assumed, whether rightly or wrongly. To omit the premises is to offer them as given or true enough to proceed.

In a maneuver the Greeks loved, the conclusion can be dropped, so that the audience fills it in: “We all know ‘Z’ and we all know ‘Y’...” By combining the two premises and prompting the audience to get ‘X’ on their own, it’s often the case that the audience will feel like they’ve participated in the argument.  This is precisly where it gains its rhetorical efficacy: by completing the enthymeme, they may feel invested in the claim and more likely to accept it, because to deny it would be to deny a conclusion that they came to “on their own.”

This means that for us savvy-argument-decoders, we have to fill in the implicit connectors (like, “because,” “since,” “and so”) and search out the evidence for certain claims. This spotting of assumptions (premises) is a crucial tool for effective and ethical reasoning.