Reasoned Argument

From GM-RKB
(Redirected from Inference Argument)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Reasoned Argument is an analytical argument (composed of supporting statements and conclusions) that makes use of reasoning to support a reasoned conclusion.

References

2024

  • Perplexity
    • A reasoned argument is an argument that uses reasoning to support a conclusion. The key components of a reasoned argument are:
      • Supporting statements or premises that provide evidence or reasons
      • A conclusion which is the claim or inference being argued for
    • The premises provide the supporting evidence that aims to establish the conclusion as true or valid. A reasoned argument uses reasoning, which involves drawing logical connections between the premises and the conclusion being argued for. [1][2]
    • To properly construct a reasoned argument, the premises (supporting statements) must provide sufficient evidence and logical reasoning to support the conclusion. The conclusion should follow logically from the premises and evidence provided. [1][2]
    • In making a reasoned argument, one aims to provide reasons and evidence to convince an audience that the conclusion being argued for is true or valid. The premises are intended to provide grounds or justification for accepting the conclusion. [1][2]
    • For example, to argue for the conclusion "The water is boiling", supporting statements providing evidence could be "The water is bubbling rapidly" and "Steam is rising from the pot". These premises provide reasons and evidence to support the conclusion that the water is boiling.
    • In summary, a reasoned argument comprises premises intended as supporting evidence for a conclusion, with the reasoning connecting the premises to the conclusion. The premises provide reasons to establish the truth or validity of the conclusion being argued.
    • Citations:
[1] http://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/Reasoned_Argument
[2] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Argument_and_Debate/Arguing_Using_Critical_Thinking_%28Marteney%29/07:_Reasoning/7.02:_Overview_of_Reasoning
[3] https://open.library.okstate.edu/criticalthinking/chapter/__unknown__/
[4] https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-psych/well-reasoned-argument
[5] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/reasoned-argument
[6] https://blog.shabda.co/2022/07/03/reasoning-vs-arguments/
[7] https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat/lsat-lessons/logical-reasoning/a/logical-reasoning--article--intro-to-arguments
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
[9] https://www.worldsupporter.org/en/chapter/67799-2-what-are-two-ways-reasoning
[10] https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-conclusion-argument-1689783
[11] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
[12] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/reasoned-debate
[13] https://www.lsd.law/define/conclusion

2016

  • (Wikipedia, 2016) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/argument Retrieved:2016-10-19.
    • In philosophy and logic, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. [1] [2] The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. [3] [4] [5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science. In a typical deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth. [6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, [7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting. The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic. [8] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.
  1. ↑ "Argument", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." "In everyday life, we often use the word "argument" to mean a verbal dispute or disagreement. This is not the way this word is usually used in philosophy. However, the two uses are related. Normally, when two people verbally disagree with each other, each person attempts to convince the other that his/her viewpoint is the right one. Unless he or she merely results to name calling or threats, he or she typically presents an argument for his or her position, in the sense described above. In philosophy, "arguments" are those statements a person makes in the attempt to convince someone of something, or present reasons for accepting a given conclusion."
  2. ↑ Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument (New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum, 2000), 46-49.
  3. ↑ Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument (New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum, 2000), 46.
  4. ↑ The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Ed. CUM, 1995 "Argument: a sequence of statements such that some of them (the premises) purport to give reason to accept another of them, the conclusion"
  5. ↑ Stanford Enc. Phil., Classical Logic
  6. ↑ "Deductive and Inductive Arguments," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  7. ↑ hCharles Taylor, "The Validity of Transcendental Arguments", Philosophical Arguments (Harvard, 1995), 20-33. “[Transcendental] arguments consist of a string of what one could call indispensability claims. They move from their starting points to their conclusions by showing that the condition stated in the conclusion is indispensable to the feature identified at the start… Thus we could spell out Kant's transcendental deduction in the first edition in three stages: experience must have an object, that is, be of something; for this it must be coherent; and to be coherent it must be shaped by the understanding through the categories."
  8. ↑ "Argument", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy."

2004

  • http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm
    • QUOTE: "Argument" is the most fundamental concept in our study of critical thinking. Much of this course will be devoted to identifying, developing, and evaluating arguments. We will study valid and invalid forms of arguments, strong and weak arguments, causal arguments, analogical arguments, and arguments based on generalizations. The significance of arguments to critical thinking makes it important for all of us to understand the term, and its relationship to some of the basic language of the critical thinking course.

      The word "argument" is often used in everyday language to refer to a heated dispute, a quarrel, a shouting match. Please take note that we will not be using argument in this sense throughout this course. Instead, "argument," as we will be using the term refers to "a set of propositions, or statements, which are designed to convince a reader or listener of a claim, or conclusion, and which include at least one reason (premise) for accepting the conclusion."

Retrieved from "http://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/index.php?title=Reasoned_Argument&oldid=892351"