1705137366
21.3 Summary
1705137367
1705137368
Several of the previous chapters in this text have described the kinds of arguments, the elements that comprise them, and the various structures into which arguments are crafted. This chapter changed directions to discuss the quality of arguments—those features that separate better arguments from worse arguments. The three criteria discussed were acceptability of evidence, relevance, and sufficiency of the link between evidence and claim. Along with those three criteria, the chapter discussed the most basic of fallacies that correspond to each of the three criteria: problematic premises, irrelevant reasons, and hasty conclusions. Then, each of those categories was exemplified by more specific fallacies classified under each.
1705137369
1705137370
This chapter also emphasized that fallacies are not the only criteria relevant to argument quality. Fallacies only relate to the logical dimension of argument. Even then, the presence of a fallacy does not mean an argument is not cogent or persuasive—only that it could be made more cogent and persuasive by removing the fallacy. Similarly, the absence of a fallacy does not mean the argument is persuasive—only that an argument without fallacies is more persuasive and cogent. As such, fallacies are as much a call for debaters to improve their arguments as they are a call for judges and audiences to reject the arguments.
1705137371
1705137372
在之前的几章中，我们介绍了论证的种类、要素及其结构。本章则将重点放在了论证的质量上，介绍了区分好坏论证的特质。文中提到的三个评判标准是——论据的接受度、论点及论据间关联的相关度和充分度。除了这三个评价标准之外，本章也介绍了与这三种标准相对应的三种最基本的谬误——前提错误类谬误、相关性谬误以及充分性谬误。其中，每个种类下又列举了一些具体的谬误加以举例说明。
1705137373
1705137374
此外，本章还强调，谬误并不是论证质量唯一的评价标准，它仅仅与论证逻辑这一衡量维度相关。存在谬误并不代表这个论证不具有说服力，这只是表示，如果去除了其中的谬误部分，它会更加令人信服。同样的，论证中不存在推理谬误也并不意味着这个论证具有说服力，只能表示这个论证因为没有推理谬误而相对更令人信服。综上所述，是否存在推理谬论不仅是辩手是否需要提高论证质量的重要依据，也是评委和观众判断是否能够接受论证的重要依据。
1705137375
1705137377
21.4 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 21
1705137378
1705137379
Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:
1705137380
1705137381
· Johnson and Blair Model of Argument Cogency
1705137382
1705137383
· Acceptability
1705137384
1705137385
· Relevance
1705137386
1705137387
· Sufficiency
1705137388
1705137389
· Problematic premises
1705137390
1705137391
· Begging the question
1705137392
1705137393
· Fallacy of incompatibility
1705137394
1705137395
· Fallacy of irrelevant reason
1705137396
1705137397
· Argument ad hominem
1705137398
1705137399
· Argument of straw
1705137400
1705137401
· Red herring fallacy
1705137402
1705137403
· Hasty conclusions
1705137404
1705137405
· Hasty generalization
1705137406
1705137407
· Slippery slope arguments
1705137408
1705137410
21.5 Discussion Questions for Chapter 21
1705137411
1705137412
· How are the three criteria contained in the Johnson and Blair Model of Argument Cogency related to the overall structure of an argument?
1705137413
1705137414
· Describe the three standards for argument acceptability.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705137365e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]