Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2007

Publication Title

Informal Logic

Volume

27

Issue

3

First Page

267

Last Page

292

Keywords

Argumentation schemes, Burden of proof, Critical questions, Defeasible reasoning, Heuristics, Models of dialogue, Cogency, R.S.A criteria

Abstract

This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to Pinto (2001). Concerning critical questions, we propose an account on which they are founded in the R.S.A. cogency standard, and develop an account of the relationship between critical questions and burden of proof. Our ultimate aim is to initiate a reconciliation between dialectical and informal logic approaches to the schemes.

Share

COinS