DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Southampton Research Repository

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Southampton Research Repository University of Southampton Research Repository Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis and, where applicable, any accompanying data are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non- commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis and the accompanying data cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content of the thesis and accompanying research data (where applicable) must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder/s. When referring to this thesis and any accompanying data, full bibliographic details must be given, e.g. Thesis: Blount, T,. (2018) “Modelling Eristic and Rhetorical Argumentation on the Social Web”, University of Southampton, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, PhD Thesis, [pagination]. Data: Author (Year) Title. URI [dataset] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES Electronics and Computer Science Modelling Eristic and Rhetorical Argumentation on the Social Web by Tom Blount Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2018 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES Electronics and Computer Science Doctor of Philosophy MODELLING ERISTIC AND RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION ON THE SOCIAL WEB by Tom Blount Argumentation, debate and discussion are key facets of human communication, shaping the way people form, share and promote ideas, hypotheses and solutions to problems. Argumenta- tion can broadly be broken down into collaborative problem solving or truth-seeking (dialectic argumentation) and quarrelling without hope for a resolution, either aggressively or for the pur- pose of recreation, catharsis or entertainment (eristic argumentation). Techniques used within argumentation can likewise be classified as primarily fact-based (logical), or emotion-based (rhetorical). The social web, consisting of the people, tools and communities that form over the world wide web, is a growing way in which individuals, social groups and even corporations share content, ideas and information, as well as hold discussions and debates. Current models of argumentation often focus on formal argumentation techniques, in which participants are expected to abide by a stringent set of rules or practices. However, on the social web there is no such code of conduct. Antisocial behaviour, which often stems from argumentation, can have a negative impact on online communities, driving away new users and stifling participation. This thesis examines the way in which the use of eristic and rhetorical argumentation impacts the perception and engagement of participants in, and the audience of, arguments on the social web. After a preliminary investigation to determine the effectiveness with which current formal mod- els represent eristic argument, a series of augmentations to these existing models was proposed, dubbed the Argumentation on the Social Web Ontology. This allows for the explicit representa- tion of rhetorical support and attack, and supports the annotation of groups of participants and the viewing audience. These augmentations were further refined through deeper investigation of modelling social argument, and through expert review. This culminated in the creation of a large dataset which was in turn used to drive an experiment into the way in which social media users perceive and engage with different types of eristic argumentation, showing that while rhetorical tactics were often more entertaining and offensive than their logical counterparts, they did not significantly alter the degree of engagement with the discussion. Contents Declaration of Authorship xvii Acknowledgements xix 1 Introduction1 1.1 Problem Space and Motivation..........................1 1.2 Hypothesis and Research Questions.......................3 1.3 Report Structure..................................4 1.4 Contributions...................................6 2 Background7 2.1 Rhetoric and Argumentation...........................7 2.1.1 Modes of Persuasion...........................7 2.1.2 Dialectic and Eristic Argument......................8 2.1.3 Modelling Argument...........................8 2.1.3.1 Toulmin Model........................9 2.1.3.2 Argument Model Ontology and Citation Typing Ontology.. 10 2.1.3.3 Scholarly Ontologies Project................. 11 2.1.3.4 Issue-Based Information Systems............... 12 2.1.3.5 Wigmore’s Charting Method................. 13 2.1.3.6 Dung’s Framework...................... 14 2.1.3.7 The World Wide Argument Web............... 15 2.1.3.8 The Argument Interchange Format.............. 15 2.1.3.9 Speech Act Theory, Inference Anchoring Theory, and the AIF+ 18 2.2 Online Communication and Interaction...................... 19 2.2.1 Social Media and the Social Web.................... 19 2.2.2 Anti-Social Behaviour.......................... 20 2.2.3 Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities............. 22 2.3 Social Aspects of Argumentation......................... 23 2.3.1 Modelling Argumentation on the Social Web.............. 23 2.3.2 Social Argumentation Tools and Platforms............... 24 2.4 Summary..................................... 25 3 Modelling with the Argument Interchange Format 27 3.1 Methodology................................... 27 3.1.1 Combining the AIF and SIOC...................... 27 3.1.2 Data Collection.............................. 28 3.1.3 Data Sampling and Annotation...................... 32 v vi CONTENTS 3.2 Results and Analysis............................... 33 3.3 Summary..................................... 36 4 The Argumentation on the Social Web Ontology 41 4.1 Extending the AIF................................. 42 4.2 Experimental Application............................. 49 4.2.1 Methodology............................... 49 4.2.1.1 Data Collection........................ 49 4.2.1.2 Annotation Method...................... 50 4.2.2 Results and Analysis........................... 51 4.2.2.1 Annotations.......................... 51 4.2.2.2 Argumentation Tactics Over Time.............. 51 4.2.2.3 Argumentation Tactics per User................ 52 4.2.2.4 Correlation Between Argumentation Structure and Post Features 54 4.3 Further Proposals................................. 56 4.3.1 Ad hominem ............................... 58 4.3.2 Appeal to Consensus........................... 61 4.3.3 Association Fallacy............................ 62 4.3.4 Appeal to Humour............................ 63 4.4 Expert Review................................... 65 4.4.1 Methodology............................... 66 4.4.2 Results and Analysis........................... 66 4.4.2.1 Social Argumentation..................... 67 4.4.2.2 Completeness......................... 68 4.4.2.3 Clarity............................. 69 4.4.2.4 Consistency.......................... 69 4.5 Final Proposals.................................. 70 4.6 Summary..................................... 70 5 Case Studies of Argument 73 5.1 Methodology................................... 73 5.1.1 Data Sample............................... 73 5.1.2 Annotation................................ 77 5.2 Data Analysis................................... 78 5.3 Narrative Account................................. 81 5.3.1 Facebook................................. 81 5.3.2 Twitter.................................. 84 5.3.3 Reddit................................... 86 5.4 Summary..................................... 89 6 Perception of Rhetorical Tactics in Individual Comments 93 6.1 Experimental Hypothesis............................. 94 6.2 Methodology................................... 94 6.2.1 Data Sample............................... 94 6.2.2 Participants and Survey.......................... 94 6.3 Data Analysis and Results............................ 97 6.3.1 Raw Data................................. 97 CONTENTS vii 6.3.2 Inter-Rater Reliability.......................... 100 6.3.3 Question Breakdown........................... 105 6.3.4 Logic/Rhetoric.............................. 107 6.3.5 Support/Attack.............................. 109 6.3.6 Rationale................................. 112 6.3.6.1 Coherence........................... 112 6.3.6.2 Credibility........................... 114 6.3.6.3 Persuasion........................... 116 6.3.6.4 Entertainment......................... 118 6.3.6.5 Offence............................ 119 6.3.6.6 Engagement.......................... 119 6.4 Summary..................................... 125 7 Conclusions and Future Work 127 7.1 Summary of Work and Findings......................... 127 7.1.1 Hypothesis and Research Questions................... 128 7.2 Proposals for Future Work............................ 130 7.2.1 Extended Perception Study........................ 131 7.2.2 Social Features and Self-Presentation.................. 131 7.2.3 AI and Reasoning............................. 132 7.2.4 Crowdsourcing.............................. 132 7.3 Final Conclusions................................. 133 A Ethical Approval of Experiments 145 A.1 Expert Review................................... 145 A.1.1 Ethics Application............................ 145 A.1.1.1 Pre-Study........................... 145 A.1.1.2 During the Study........................ 147 A.1.1.3 Post-Study........................... 147 A.1.2 Participant Information.......................... 148 A.2 Perception of Argument Study.........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative North Americas: What Canada and The
    ALTERNATIVE NORTH AMERICAS What Canada and the United States Can Learn from Each Other David T. Jones ALTERNATIVE NORTH AMERICAS Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Copyright © 2014 by David T. Jones All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of author’s rights. Published online. ISBN: 978-1-938027-36-9 DEDICATION Once more for Teresa The be and end of it all A Journey of Ten Thousand Years Begins with a Single Day (Forever Tandem) TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 Borders—Open Borders and Closing Threats .......................................... 12 Chapter 2 Unsettled Boundaries—That Not Yet Settled Border ................................ 24 Chapter 3 Arctic Sovereignty—Arctic Antics ............................................................. 45 Chapter 4 Immigrants and Refugees .........................................................................54 Chapter 5 Crime and (Lack of) Punishment .............................................................. 78 Chapter 6 Human Rights and Wrongs .................................................................... 102 Chapter 7 Language and Discord ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Fallacy of Arguing from Authority
    There is no Fallacy ofArguing from Authority EDWIN COLEMAN University ofMelbourne Keywords: fallacy, argument, authority, speech act. Abstract: I argue that there is no fallacy of argument from authority. I first show the weakness of the case for there being such a fallacy: text-book presentations are confused, alleged examples are not genuinely exemplary, reasons given for its alleged fallaciousness are not convincing. Then I analyse arguing from authority as a complex speech act. R~iecting the popular but unjustified category of the "part-time fallacy", I show that bad arguments which appeal to authority are defective through breach of some felicity condition on argument as a speech act, not through employing a bad principle of inference. 1. Introduction/Summary There's never been a satisfactory theory of fallacy, as Hamblin pointed out in his book of 1970, in what is still the least unsatisfactory discussion. Things have not much improved in the last 25 years, despite fallacies getting more attention as interest in informal logic has grown. We still lack good answers to simple questions like what is a fallacy?, what fallacies are there? and how should we classifY fallacies? The idea that argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a fallacy, is well-established in logical tradition. I argue that it is no such thing. The second main part of the paper is negative: I show the weakness of the case made in the literature for there being such a fallacy as argument from authority. First, text-book presentation of the fallacy is confused, second, the examples given are not genuinely exemplary and third, reasons given for its alleged fallaciousness are not convincing.
    [Show full text]
  • Beardsley's Theory of Analogy
    INFORMAL LOGIC XI.3, Fall 1989 Beardsley's Theory of Analogy EVELYN M. BARKER The University of Maryland 1. Is the Argument from Analogy a consequences of an "abdication of Fallacy? statesmanship."2 Kissinger cites historical analogy as the only basis for sound judg­ In the various editions of Practical Logic ment in international diplomacy: and Thinking Straight Monroe Beardsley History is the only experience on which pioneered informal logic, the assessment of statesmen can draw. But it does not teach reasoning techniques employed in actual its lessons automatically. It demonstrates the human situations. 1 Although acknowledg­ consequences of comparable situations, but ing the prominence of analogies in reason­ each generation has to determine what situa­ ing, he contended that analogy has some tions are in fact comparable. heuristic uses, but an argument based on one Such analogical arguments, as Kissinger is inherently fallacious: points out, are directed to finding suitable Analogies illustrate, and they lead to premises for wise and prudent action. hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy Beardsley's intellectualist approach limits becomes fallacious when the analogy is us­ rational argumentation to asserting premises ed as a reason for a principle. This fallacy as evidence for the truth of a conclusion. is called the "argument from analogy." Consequently he overlooks or misconceives (PL 107) the character of some forms of analogical Beardsley's view implies that no serious argument prevalent in practical reasoning. reasoner will use analogies between things It is misleading to speak of "the argument in drawing conclusions, or be persuaded by from analogy," as Beardsley does, as if all another's introduction of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics 496 Introduction to Research Lecture 2.0: Tools for the Scientific Skeptic (Lance Cooper, Laura Greene, Tony Liss, Doug Beck)
    PHYS 496, Spring 2014 02/14/2014 D.H. Beck Physics 496 Introduction to Research Lecture 2.0: Tools for the Scientific Skeptic (Lance Cooper, Laura Greene, Tony Liss, Doug Beck) Critical Evaluation Scientific papers and research presentations, when well done, are very convincing. How do you know if they are correct? How do you know if your own research is correct? Answer: Apply logic. Critique the arguments made to arrive at the conclusions. “Science is simply common-sense at its best; that is, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to fallacy in logic.“ (The Crayfish, 1880). “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist 1825-1895 Copyright © 2014 Board of Directors of the University of Illinois 1 PHYS 496, Spring 2014 02/14/2014 D.H. Beck Aside: Oxford Evolution Debate Held at the Oxford University Museum seven months after the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species. Bishop Samuel Wilberforce to Huxley: “On which side do you claim your descent from a monkey, your grandmother or your grandfather?” Huxley: “I would not be ashamed to be descended from a monkey. But I would be ashamed to be descended from a man who uses his great gifts to obscure the truth!” The Scientific Method 1. Observe and describe a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulate an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Perform experimental tests of the predictions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument Form “Appeal to Galileo”: a Critical Appreciation of Doury's Account
    The Argument Form “Appeal to Galileo”: A Critical Appreciation of Doury’s Account MAURICE A. FINOCCHIARO Department of Philosophy University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154-5028 USA [email protected] Abstract: Following a linguistic- Résumé: En poursuivant une ap- descriptivist approach, Marianne proche linguistique-descriptiviste, Doury has studied debates about Marianne Doury a étudié les débats “parasciences” (e.g. astrology), dis- sur les «parasciences » (par exem- covering that “parascientists” fre- ple, l'astrologie), et a découvert que quently argue by “appeal to Galileo” les «parasavants» raisonnent souvent (i.e., defend their views by compar- en faisant un «appel à Galilée" (c.-à- ing themselves to Galileo and their d. ils défendent leurs points de vue opponents to the Inquisition); oppo- en se comparant à Galileo et en nents object by criticizing the analo- comparant leurs adversaires aux gy, charging fallacy, and appealing juges de l’Inquisition). Les adver- to counter-examples. I argue that saires des parasavant critiquent Galilean appeals are much more l'analogie en la qualifiant de soph- widely used, by creationists, global- isme, et en construisant des contre- warming skeptics, advocates of “set- exemples. Je soutiens que les appels tled science”, great scientists, and à Galilée sont beaucoup plus large- great philosophers. Moreover, sever- ment utilisés, par des créationnistes, al subtypes should be distinguished; des sceptiques du réchauffement critiques questioning the analogy are planétaire, des défenseurs de la «sci- proper; fallacy charges are problem- ence établie», des grands scien- atic; and appeals to counter- tifiques, et des grands philosophes. examples are really indirect critiques En outre, on doit distinguer plusieurs of the analogy.
    [Show full text]
  • Circles and Analogies in Public Health Reasoning Louise Cummings
    SUMMER 2014, VOL. 29, NO. 2 35 Circles and Analogies in Public Health Reasoning Louise Cummings School of Arts and Humanities Nottingham Trent University, UK Abstract 7KHVWXG\RIWKHIDOODFLHVKDVFKDQJHGDOPRVWEH\RQGUHFRJQLWLRQVLQFH&KDUOHV+DPEOLQFDOOHG IRUDUDGLFDOUHDSSUDLVDORIWKLVDUHDRIORJLFDOLQTXLU\LQKLVERRN)DOODFLHV7KH³ZLWOHVV H[DPSOHVRIKLVIRUEHDUV´WRZKLFK+DPEOLQUHIHUUHGKDYHODUJHO\EHHQUHSODFHGE\PRUH authentic cases of the fallacies in actual use. It is now not unusual for fallacy and argumentation theorists to draw on actual sources for examples of how the fallacies are used in our everyday UHDVRQLQJ+RZHYHUDQDVSHFWRIWKLVPRYHWRZDUGVJUHDWHUDXWKHQWLFLW\LQWKHVWXG\RIWKH fallacies, an aspect which has been almost universally neglected, is the attempt to subject the fallacies to empirical testing of the type which is more commonly associated with psychological experiments on reasoning. This paper addresses this omission in research on the fallacies by examining how subjects use two fallacies – circular argument and analogical argument – during a reasoning task in which subjects are required to consider a number of public health scenarios. Results are discussed in relation to a view of the fallacies as cognitive heuristics that facilitate reasoning in a context of uncertainty. Keywords: analogical argument, circular argument, heuristic, informal fallacy, public health, reasoning, uncertainty I. Introduction puns, anecdotes, and witless examples of his forbears. The study of the fallacies has changed :KHUHSKLORVRSKLFDOUHÀHFWLRQRQWKH considerably in
    [Show full text]
  • Gordon, Specious Arguments
    Specious Arguments Dr. T. David Gordon Professor of Greek, Humanities, and Religion Grove City College Introduction Although we commonly use the term “argument” to describe a rather unprofitable, angry exchange of viewpoints, the term has also been used to describe the reasons advanced for embracing a particular viewpoint. This is how I will use the term here. As such, arguments are, of course, vital to the human race. When a particular neurosurgeon “argues” for treating a given patient a given way, he or she is not being argumentative; but rather is contending for a procedure which, it is hoped, will restore the patient to health. The argument is designed to promote life. In a similar way, arguments are vital to advancing the Christian faith. Paul spoke of the “warfare” of the Christian religion in this way: “for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4). Negatively, the Christian faith wages war against false arguments. This explains Paul’s instruction to Titus about bishops: “He must have a firm grasp of the word…, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). But positively, the faith is also propagated by setting forth correct and true arguments. The apostle Peter, for instance, “…testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation’” (Acts 2:40).
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact Factor Fallacy
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/108027; this version posted February 20, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Title: 2 The impact factor fallacy 3 Authors: 4 Frieder Michel Paulus 1; Nicole Cruz 2,3; Sören Krach 1 5 Affiliations: 6 1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Social Neuroscience Lab, University of Lübeck, 7 Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany 8 2 Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK 9 3 Laboratoire CHArt, École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE), Paris, France 10 Corresponding Authors: 11 Frieder Paulus, phone: ++49-(0)451- 31017527, email: [email protected] 12 Sören Krach, phone: ++49-(0)451-5001717, email: [email protected] 13 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Social Neuroscience Lab, University of Lübeck, 14 Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany 15 Author contributions: 16 FMP, NC, and SK wrote the manuscript. 17 Running title: The impact factor fallacy 18 Word count abstract: 135 19 Word count manuscript (including footnotes): 4013 20 Number of tables: 1 21 Number of figures: 0 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/108027; this version posted February 20, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 22 Abstract 23 The use of the journal impact factor (JIF) as a measure for the quality of individual 24 manuscripts and the merits of scientists has faced significant criticism in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • I Correlative-Based Fallacies
    Fallacies In Argument 本文内容均摘自 Wikipedia,由 ode@bdwm 编辑整理，请不要用于商业用途。 为方便阅读，删去了原文的 references,见谅 I Correlative-based fallacies False dilemma The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice. When a person really does have only two choices, as in the classic short story The Lady or the Tiger, then they are often said to be "on the horns of a dilemma". False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception. When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Hansard No
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Official Hansard No. 2, 2002 TUESDAY, 12 MARCH 2002 FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FIRST PERIOD BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard SITTING DAYS—2002 Month Date February 12, 13, 14 March 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 May 14, 15, 16 June 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 August 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 September 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 October 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 November 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 December 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified. CANBERRA 1440 AM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM BRISBANE 936 AM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM SENATE CONTENTS TUESDAY, 12 MARCH Distinguished Visitors........................................................................................... 509 Questions Without Notice— Health: Program Funding ................................................................................ 509 New Tax System.............................................................................................. 509 Health: Program Funding ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]