Argumentation II

Full course description

In this sequel to SKI2049 Argumentation I, we will zoom in on the structure of arguments. In the first part of the skills training the Toulmin model of argumentation is introduced. This model goes beyond the basic distinction of premises and conclusions as constituent parts of arguments by distinguishing the different functions that premises can fulfill. The Toulmin model is more flexible than argumentative analysis based on formal logic, but also more specific and logically rigorous than the tools introduced in Argumentation I. Therefore it can be a powerful tool for specific and sophisticated argumentative analysis. Such analyses will be conducted during this skills training, first on small, simplified academic arguments and afterwards on a larger scale, analyzing examples from real life discourse. Finally, in the midterm assignment, students are asked to apply the Toulmin model to design an argument themselves.

The second part of the course takes the analysis of argumentative structures a step further and the tools that are used are logically even more rigorous. This part introduces students to basic sentential logic, a strictly formal, almost mathematical approach to argument analysis. Sentential logic introduces a simple set of rules and procedures that allows students to test whether an argument is formally valid, i.e. if its structure is correct, independent of its content.  To test for the validity of an argument in this way, the structure of English sentences will be separated from their content by translating the sentences into symbols; afterwards formal rules will be applied (by using truth tables and semantic tableaus) to check whether an argument logically works or not.

Note: Students should be aware of the abstract nature of formal logical reasoning when enrolling for this course. Learning this is highly valuable to train a particular way of thinking, but students might perceive this skill as less directly applicable to, for example, paper writing or discussions than the tools that are introduced in Argumentation I.