The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BailensonJ. (2001). Contrast ratio: Shifting burden of proof in informal arguments.Discourse Processes32, 29–41.
2.
BaymN. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion.Research on Language and Social Interaction29, 315–345.
3.
BlairJ. A. (2001). Walton's argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning: A critique and development.Argumentation15, 365–379.
4.
CareyS. S. (2000). The uses and abuses of argument: Critical thinking and fallacious reasoningMountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishers.
5.
CollinsA.MichalskiR. (1989). The logic of plausible reasoning: A core theory.Cognitive Science13, 1–49.
6.
ConwayD. A. (1991). On the distinction between convergent and linked arguments.Informal Logic13, 145–158.
7.
EvansJ. St. B. T.ThompsonV. A. (2004). Informal reasoning: Theory and method.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology58, 69–74.
8.
FeldmanR. (1999). Reason and argument.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
FeltonM.KuhnD. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill.Discourse Processes32, 135–153.
10.
FisherA. (1988). The logic of real argumentsCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FisherA. (1992). “Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument” by James Freeman.Informal Logic14, 193–204.
12.
FreemanJ. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structureBerlin, Germany: Foris Publications.
13.
FreemanJ. B. (2001). Argument structure and disciplinary perspective.Argumentation15, 397–423.
14.
GoldmanA. I. (1994). Argumentation and social epistemology.The Journal of Philosophy91, 27–49.
15.
GovierT. (1992). A practical study of argument.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation.ColeP.MorganJ. L.Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts.New York: Academic Press.
17.
HalpernD. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
HeitE. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review7, 569–592.
19.
HeitE.FeeneyA. (2005). Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review12, 340–344.
20.
HoaglundJ. (2000). Reasoning and giving reasons.Australian Journal of Philosophy78, 575–594.
21.
JacobsS. (1989). Speech acts and arguments.Argumentation3, 345–365.
22.
KnottA.SandersT. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages.Journal of Pragmatics30, 135–175.
23.
KuhnD. (1991). The skills of argumentCambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
24.
LeitaoS. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building.Human Development43, 332–360.
25.
MannW. C.ThompsonS. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization.Text8, 243–281.
26.
MartinB. A.LangB.WongS. (2004). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition and argument quality on persuasion.Journal of Advertising32, 57–65.
27.
MedinD. L.ColeyJ. D.StormsG.HayesB. K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review10, 517–532.
28.
MuntiglP.TurnbullW. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing.Journal of Pragmatics29, 225–256.
29.
NienkampJ. (2001). Internal rhetoric: Toward a history and theory of self-persuasionCarbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
30.
O'KeefeD. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument.Journal of the American Forensic Association13, 121–128.
31.
O'KeefeD. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages.Argumentation and Advocacy35, 61–75.
32.
ProffittJ. B.ColeyJ. D.MedinD. L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26, 811–828.
33.
RiccoR. B. (2002). Analyzing the roles of challenge and defense in argumentation.Argumentation and Advocacy39, 1–22.
34.
RiccoR. B. (2003). The macrostructure of informal arguments: A proposed model and analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56A, 1021–1051.
35.
RipsL. J. (1998). Reasoning and conversation.Psychological Review105, 411–441.
36.
SandersT.NoordmanL. G. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing.Discourse Processes29, 37–60.
37.
SandersT.SpoorenW. P.NoordmanL. G. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations.Discourse Processes15, 1–35.
38.
ShawV. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning.Thinking and Reasoning2, 51–80.
39.
SlobW. H. (2002). How to distinguish good and bad arguments: Dialogico-rhetorical normativity.Argumentation16, 179–195.
40.
SlomanS. A. (1994). When explanations compete: The role of explanatory coherence on judgments of likelihood.Cognition52, 1–21.
41.
SlomanS. A. (1997). Explanatory coherence and the induction of properties.Thinking and Reasoning3, 81–110.
42.
Snoeck HenkemansF. (2000). State-of–the-art: The structure of argumentation.Argumentation14, 447–473.
43.
Snoeck HenkemansF. (2003). Complex argumentation in a critical discussion.Argumentation17, 405–419.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking.Journal of Educational Psychology89, 342–357.
46.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
47.
ToulminS. (1988). The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Van der HenstJ.SperberD.PolitzerG. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems.Thinking and Reasoning8, 1–20.
49.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinionNew York: Foris.
50.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspectiveHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.HenkemansF. S.BlairJ. A.JohnsonR. H.KrabbeE. C. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theoryMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.JacksonS.JacobsS. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourseTuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
53.
van EemerenF. H.GootendorstR.SnoeckHenkemans F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentationMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
van GelderT.BissettM.CummingG. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology58, 142–152.
55.
VorobejM. (1994). The TRUE test of linkage.Informal Logic16, 147–157.
VorobejM. (1995b). Linked arguments and the validity requirement.Argumentation9, 291–304.
58.
WallerB. N. (1998). Critical thinking: Consider the verdictUpper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
59.
WaltonD. N. (1987). Informal fallacies: Toward a theory of argument criticismsAmsterdam: John Benjamin Publishers.
60.
WaltonD. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking.Argumentation3, 169–184.
61.
WaltonD. N. (1996). Argument structure: A pragmatic theoryToronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
62.
WaltonD. N. (2004). Relevance in argumentationMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63.
WaltonD. N.KrabbeE. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogueAlbany, NY: State University of New York Press.
64.
WeinstockM.NeumanY.TabakI. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments.Contemporary Educational Psychology29, 77–94.
65.
YanalR. (1988). Basic logicSt. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
66.
YanalR. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons.Informal Logic13, 137–149.
