The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning
Abstract
Recent concerns with the evaluation of argumentation in informal logic and speech communication center around nondemonstrative arguments that lead to tentative or defeasible conclusions based on a balance of considerations. Such arguments do not appear to have structures of the kind traditionally identified with deductive and inductive reasoning, but are extremely common and are often called "plausible" or "presumptive," meaning that they are only provisionally acceptable even when they are correct. How is one to judge, by some clearly defined standard, whether such arguments are correct or not in a given instance? The answer lies in what are called argumentation schemes -- forms of argument (structures of inference) that enable one to identify and evaluate common types of argumentation in everyday discourse. This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each. These two elements -- the scheme and the questions -- are then used to evaluate a given argument in a particular case in relation to a context of dialogue in which the argument occurred. In recent writings on argumentation, there is a good deal of stress placed on how important argumentation schemes are in any attempt to evaluate common arguments in everyday reasoning as correct or fallacious, acceptable or questionable. However, the problem is that the literature thus far has not produced a precise and user-friendly enough analysis of the structures of the argumentation schemes themselves, nor have any of the documented accounts been as helpful, accessible, or systematic as they could be, especially in relation to presumptive reasoning. This book solves the problem by presenting the most common presumptive schemes in an orderly and clear way that makes them explicit and useful as precisely defined structures. As such, it will be an indispensable tool for researchers, students, and teachers in the areas of critical thinking, argumentation, speech communication, informal logic, and discourse analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260208560187 · Cited by 1,161
Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1006 · Cited by 363
Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., & Roohr, K. C. (2014) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12009 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Walton, D.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2013-11-05
- OpenAlex
- W2129213188
- Cited by
- 991
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 94.79
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9780203811160
- The paper
- Walton, D. (2013). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.