Chapter published in:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 39–56
Chapter 2Connection premises
Their character, criticism, and defence
By presenting an argument, a proponent commits himself or herself to the adequacy of the connection between the argument’s premises and its conclusion. What is this connection, and when is it adequate? I deal with these questions by using insights and techniques from dialectical approaches to argumentation. First, I show that by advancing an argument, the proponent commits himself or herself to its connection proposition, which dose not generalize upon the conclusion and premises. When a challenge turns this connection proposition into a connection premise, there may be a particularist defence available, so that the proponent need not commit himself or herself to any generalization of it. Second, I pay attention to situations where the proponent does choose to support the connection premise by means of a general argumentation scheme, showing there to be a variety of ways to justify that scheme.
2.The character of connection propositions
- 2.1Connection propositions
- 2.2Connection premises
- 3.Justifying argumentation schemes
- 3.1The dismissive response
- 3.2The argumentative response
Published online: 02 November 2017
Barth, E., & Krabbe E. C. W.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst R.
Freeman, J. B.
(2007) ‘On the Generality of Warrants’. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/∼hitchckd/.
van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe E. C. W.
Krabbe, E. C. W.
Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A.
(2013) House Speaker’s Commitment to the Party of Stupid. MAL Contends …, March 17, 2013 (MAL Contends: http://malcontends.blogspot.com).
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.
Walton, D. N., & Sartori, G.