The Process of Argument: An Introduction is a necessary companion for anyone seeking to engage in successful persuasion: To organize, construct, and communicate arguments. It is both comprehensive and accessible: An authoritative guide to logical thinking and effective communication. The book begins with techniques to improve reading comprehension, including guides on navigating through fake news and internet trolls. Then, readers are taught how to reconstruct deductive, inductive, and abductive presentations so that the logical structure is explicit. And finally, there is a step-by-step guide for responding to these texts via the argumentative essay. Along the way are current examples from social media and elsewhere on the internet along with guides for assessing truth claims in an ever-complicated community worldview. Throughout, are carefully selected reading questions and exercises that will pace readers in order to ensure that the text is securely grasped and successfully applied. Key Features Offers guidance on how to read a text through self-analysis and social criticism Provides a step-by-step procedure for allowing the student to move from reading to reconstruction to being prepared to write an effective argumentative essay Presents truth theory and shows readers how they can helpfully acquaint themselves with a version of realistic, foundational epistemology Offers guidelines and helpful tools on how best to structure an argumentative, pro or con, essay Includes expansive coverage of inductive logic through the use and assessment of statistics Covers abductive logic as it applies to the analysis of narrative in argumentative writing Has up-to-date examples from the media, including from blogs, social media, and television Includes a helpful glossary of all important terms in the book

A practical guide on how to produce and engage with arguments

Three experienced trial lawyers examine twelve characteristics of a winning argument and present the rudiments and sophisticated levels of persuasion based upon ancient and modern techniques. An understanding of these basic principles will help you develop and present an effective argument before a judge, jury, a colleague or in mediation.

Over the years, various approaches to validation have emerged in psychological and educational assessment research, which can be classified into traditional approaches and modern approaches. Traditional approaches view validity as a multicomponential concept including, for example, content, construct, and predictive validity, while modern approaches conceptualize it as a unitary concept evaluated through argumentation. Drawing on the modern approach, this book builds a validity argument for an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) listening test sample. The book provides some insights into the listening sub-skills that the test engages, the psychometric dimensionality of the test, variables that predict item difficulty parameters, bias across age, nationality, test experience, and gender, as well as predictive-referenced evidence of validity. A variety of techniques including the Rasch model and structural equation modelling are used to answer the research questions and to build a validity argument framework; this argument organizes the thematically related findings into a coherent treatment of the validity of the listening test. The book presents the first treatment of validity argument and related analytical tools in one volume and maps the psychometric/statistical analysis tools onto the validity argument framework. It also provides an extensive literature review of listening comprehension, validation, and psychometric modeling and proposes both methods for developing and validating self-assessment instruments and novel approaches to improving the quality of language assessments.

Written by experts in the field, this volume presents a comprehensive investigation into the relationship between argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematical practice. Argumentation theory studies reasoning and argument, and especially those aspects not addressed, or not addressed well, by formal deduction. The philosophy of mathematical practice diverges from mainstream philosophy of mathematics in the emphasis it places on what the majority of working mathematicians actually do, rather than on mathematical foundations. The book begins by first challenging the assumption that there is no role for informal logic in mathematics. Next, it details the usefulness of argumentation theory in the understanding of mathematical practice, offering an impressively diverse set of examples, covering the history of mathematics, mathematics education and, perhaps surprisingly, formal proof verification. From there, the book demonstrates that mathematics also offers a valuable testbed for argumentation theory. Coverage concludes by defending attention to mathematical argumentation as the basis for new perspectives on the philosophy of mathematics. ​

No detailed description available for "Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation".

This book provides a practical and accessible way of evaluating good and bad arguments used in everyday conversations by applying normative models of dialectical (interactive) argumentation, where two parties reason together in an orderly and cooperative way. Using case studies, the author analyzes correct and incorrect uses of argumentation on controversial issues that engage the reader's interest while illustrating points in a practical way. Walton gives clear explanations of the most common errors and tricky deceptions -- traditionally called "fallacies" -- that can trip up an unwary arguer.

Presents papers from the Third Conference on Computational Models of Argument, held in September 2010 in Desanzano del Garda, Italy. Providing a view of this important research field, this book is of interest to those involved in the use and development of artificial intelligence systems.

Sample Text

US constitutional jurisprudence often conflates two distinct enquiries: how to interpret the Constitution and how to allocate interpretive authority. This book explains the distinct role of judgements about interpretive authority in constitutional practice. It argues that these judgements do not determine what qualifies as good constitutional argument, and cannot substitute for it. Rather, they specify the division of labour between the political branches and the judiciary in forming applicable constitutional determinations. This explanation of the structure of constitutional reasoning sets the stage for the development of a normative theory about each enquiry. The book advances a theory of substantive constitutional argument. It argues that constitutional interpretation is a special kind of practical reasoning, aiming to construct and specify morally sound accounts of the Constitution and surrounding constitutional practice. Yet, this task is entrusted to a scheme of institutions, as agents of free and equal citizens. The standard of review is an interlocking component of that scheme, regulating the judicial assignment. As such, it should aim to facilitate best performance of the overall interpretive task, so that the judicial process settles on appropriate constitutional determinations; grounded on morally sound reasons that reach all citizens and uphold the fundamental commitments to freedom and equal citizenship.