Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Bernard Moulin

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3| Diagramming the self-esteem argument In this example, argumentation schemes can be used to fill in the unstated premises and to link them together with other premises and conclusions in a chain of argumentation that represents Helen’s line of argument. Walton (1996) identified twenty-five argumentation-schemes. The argumentation scheme that can be used in the case of the example is called argument from expert opinion. It is represented as follows:

Figure 3 | Diagramming the self-esteem argument In this example, argumentation schemes can be used to fill in the unstated premises and to link them together with other premises and conclusions in a chain of argumentation that represents Helen’s line of argument. Walton (1996) identified twenty-five argumentation-schemes. The argumentation scheme that can be used in the case of the example is called argument from expert opinion. It is represented as follows:

Related Figures (11)

Fig. 1 A conceptual framework of the three categories of argumentation models
Fig. 1 A conceptual framework of the three categories of argumentation models
On the basis of this notion, Breton proposed a classification of arguments (Fig. 4). This clas sification is based on the distinction between framing or realignment arguments and linkag arguments. Framing arguments allows the construction of a reference reality in which th addressee can accept the speaker’s proposition. These arguments correspond to the prepa ration of the argument content. Some of these arguments, called authority arguments, res on what is already known. They use notions like competences, experiences or testimonies Other arguments, more innovative, propose a new representation of the reality: they are the realignment arguments of reality. They are based on definitions, presentations, association: (which consist in performing new connections between different notions), or dissociation. (which consist in distinguishing the different facets of the same concept). The pnurnose of linkace arouments is to insert the defended oninion in the revresentatior
On the basis of this notion, Breton proposed a classification of arguments (Fig. 4). This clas sification is based on the distinction between framing or realignment arguments and linkag arguments. Framing arguments allows the construction of a reference reality in which th addressee can accept the speaker’s proposition. These arguments correspond to the prepa ration of the argument content. Some of these arguments, called authority arguments, res on what is already known. They use notions like competences, experiences or testimonies Other arguments, more innovative, propose a new representation of the reality: they are the realignment arguments of reality. They are based on definitions, presentations, association: (which consist in performing new connections between different notions), or dissociation. (which consist in distinguishing the different facets of the same concept). The pnurnose of linkace arouments is to insert the defended oninion in the revresentatior
Table 1 Comparison of the monological models
Table 1 Comparison of the monological models
Table 2 The evolution of CSs during a dialogue Limits
Table 2 The evolution of CSs during a dialogue Limits
Table 3. Walton and Krabbe’s dialogue types classification
Table 3. Walton and Krabbe’s dialogue types classification
and different actions (creation, acceptance, fulfillment, etc.). The formal semantics of this framework is defined using a hybrid logic combining Computation Tree Logic CTL* and dynamic logic (Bentahar et al. 2004c, 2007c, 2009b). In Bentahar et al. (2007b, 2009a), the authors extended this approach by proposing a mechanism allowing agents to reason about their strategies and tactics. The authors argued that strategic reasoning enables agents to decide about the global communication plan in terms the macro-actions to be performed in order to achieve the main conversational goal, and that tactical reasoning allows agents to locally select, at each moment, the most appropriate argument according to the adopted strategy.
and different actions (creation, acceptance, fulfillment, etc.). The formal semantics of this framework is defined using a hybrid logic combining Computation Tree Logic CTL* and dynamic logic (Bentahar et al. 2004c, 2007c, 2009b). In Bentahar et al. (2007b, 2009a), the authors extended this approach by proposing a mechanism allowing agents to reason about their strategies and tactics. The authors argued that strategic reasoning enables agents to decide about the global communication plan in terms the macro-actions to be performed in order to achieve the main conversational goal, and that tactical reasoning allows agents to locally select, at each moment, the most appropriate argument according to the adopted strategy.
Table 5 Sample of a structured critiquing text of the titanium overcast COA ligh-considered to reduced the risk of failure significantly; Alliance has numerical advantage, which allows them to seize the initiative at an acceptable risk level. Without a numerical advantage, given relative capability parity, going offensive early could squander limited resources with serious long-term effects on the campaign success
Table 5 Sample of a structured critiquing text of the titanium overcast COA ligh-considered to reduced the risk of failure significantly; Alliance has numerical advantage, which allows them to seize the initiative at an acceptable risk level. Without a numerical advantage, given relative capability parity, going offensive early could squander limited resources with serious long-term effects on the campaign success
Fig. 9 The enhanced Toulmin’s argument structure (part 2)
Fig. 9 The enhanced Toulmin’s argument structure (part 2)
Related topics:
Cognitive ScienceArtificial IntelligenceDecision MakingArgumentation TheoryCommonsense Reasoning
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved