Chapter in:
Argumentation between Doctors and Patients: Understanding clinical argumentative discourseFrans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Nanon Labrie
[Not in series 235] 2021
► pp. 57–79
Assessing the soundness of argumentation
In advancing argumentation to convince patients of the
acceptability of their standpoint, doctors must anticipate critical
reactions from the patients that are to be convinced – and patients must do
the same with regard to the critical reactions of doctors. In order to make
sure that the argumentation advanced by the doctor or the patient is to be
considered sound, every individual argument that is part of the
argumentation needs to be assessed for its acceptability. In carrying out
this assessment, one must determine for each single argumentation whether
the propositions expressed in it are acceptable, whether the reasoning
involved is valid or can be reconstructed as valid, and whether the critical
questions relevant to the type of argumentation used by the doctor or the
patient can be answered satisfactorily. In carrying out the last part of the
assessment, three main types of argumentation are to be distinguished:
argumentation based on a symptomatic relation between the reason put forward
in the argumentation and the standpoint, argumentation based on a comparison
relation, and argumentation based on a causal relation.