| Preface | 7 |
|---|
| Origins of the Chapters | 14 |
|---|
| Contents | 15 |
|---|
| 1 An Approach to Argument Macrostructure | 17 |
|---|
| 1.1 Introduction---Some Basic Preliminaries | 17 |
| 1.2 The Standard Approach | 19 |
| 1.3 Toulmins Layout of Arguments | 26 |
| 1.4 Integrating the Standard Approach and the Toulmin Model | 28 |
| 1.5 The Extended Standard Approach and the Toulmin Model | 45 |
| 1.6 Concluding Remarks | 45 |
| Appendix 1: Comparison with Wigmores Chart Method | 47 |
| Appendix 2: Comparison with Pollocks Inference Graphs | 50 |
| 2 The Dialectical Nature of Argument | 55 |
|---|
| 2.1 Dialogical Situations and Dialectical Situations | 55 |
| 2.2 What Makes Dialectical Situations Dialectical? | 56 |
| 2.3 The Basic Dialectical Situation as a Model for Argument | 58 |
| 2.4 Some Other Dialectical Views on Argument | 62 |
| 2.5 Two Possible Problems for Our Approach: Demonstrations and Inferences | 64 |
| 2.6 But is Our Model Really Dialectical? | 69 |
| 3 Toulmins Problematic Notion of Warrant | 75 |
|---|
| 3.1 Warrants and Arguments as Process | 76 |
| 3.2 What are Warrants? | 78 |
| 3.3 Toulmin on Certain Syllogisms | 79 |
| 3.4 Ryle on Conditionals | 86 |
| 3.5 Mill on the Syllogism | 92 |
| 3.6 Warrants as Always Implicit, if not Explicit in Arguments as Products | 96 |
| 3.7 Some Problems With This View | 99 |
| 4 The Linked-Convergent Distinction---A First Approximation | 105 |
|---|
| 4.1 The Problem Encountered | 105 |
| 4.2 Motivating the Linked-Convergent Through the Relevance-Ground Adequacy Distinction | 110 |
| 4.3 Testing Our Account of the Distinction | 112 |
| 4.4 Implication of Rebuttals for the Linked-Convergent Distinction | 120 |
| 5 Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective: The Linked-Convergent Versus Multiple-Co-ordinatively Compound Distinctions | 122 |
|---|
| 5.1 The Multiple-Co-ordinatively Compound Distinction | 123 |
| 5.2 Contrast with the Linked-Convergent Distinction | 127 |
| 5.3 Resolving Conflicting Accounts of the Linked-Convergent Distinction | 128 |
| 5.4 Postscript--Modalities, Defeaters, Counter-Defeaters in Disciplinary Perspective | 134 |
| 6 The Linked-Convergent Distinction--Refining the Criterion | 144 |
|---|
| 6.1 Dependent Versus Independent Relevance Explicated | 144 |
| 6.2 Tests for the Linked-Convergent Distinction on Waltons Systematic Presentation | 156 |
| 6.3 Complementary Arguments--a Third Structure Beside Linked and Convergent | 163 |
| 6.4 Further Critiques, Clarifications, and Replies | 164 |
| 6.4.1 Bassham's Challenging Example | 165 |
| 6.4.2 Must We Admit an Additional Type of Structure? | 165 |
| 6.4.3 Does Analysis Always Precede Evaluation? | 169 |
| 6.4.4 Direct Criticisms of the Relevance Test | 173 |
| 6.4.5 Should We Even Want to Make the Linked-Convergent Distinction? | 179 |
| 7 Argument Structure and Enthymemes | 187 |
|---|
| 7.1 Hitchcocks Challenge to the Notion of Non-Explicit Premises and His Alternative | 189 |
| 7.2 Problems with Hitchcocks Analysis | 197 |
| 7.3 A Middle Way: Discerning Inference Licences and Non-Explicit Premises | 200 |
| 7.4 Advantages of This Middle Way | 203 |
| 7.4.1 Our Procedure Avoids Reading Assumptions Into Arguments | 203 |
| 7.4.2 Our Procedure Avoids ''Deductive Chauvinism'' | 206 |
| 7.5 Enthymemes and the Borderline Between Argument Analysis and Evaluation | 208 |
| 8 From Analysis to Evaluation | 210 |
|---|
| 8.1 Convergent Arguments and Determining the Combined Weight of Premises | 210 |
| 8.2 Premises, Uncountered Defeaters, and Conjunctions | 213 |
| 8.3 Pollocks Inference Graphs and the Issue of Argument Evaluation | 214 |
| References | 218 |
|---|
| Index | 222 |
|---|
