Argumentation scheme

In <a href="/facts/Argumentation_theory/9oaSBJSo">argumentation theory</a>, an argumentation scheme or argument scheme is a template that represents a common type of <a href="/facts/Argument/1K1e3Xg4">argument</a> used in ordinary <a href="/facts/Conversation/GNKD6xb3">conversation</a>. Many different argumentation schemes have been identified. Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between <a href="/facts/Premise/HluL8lcd">premises</a> and a <a href="/facts/Logical_consequence/AyDXp4dn">conclusion</a> in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a <a href="/facts/Rule_of_inference/QV5NklQ9">rule of inference</a>. Argumentation schemes can include <a href="/facts/Inference/RBbe95bP">inferences</a> based on different types of <a href="/facts/Reasoning/tcBImN8J">reasoning</a>—<a href="/facts/Deductive_reasoning/HadA1zWS">deductive</a>, <a href="/facts/Inductive_reasoning/EJ992JJ9">inductive</a>, <a href="/facts/Abductive_reasoning/QoHNqvKT">abductive</a>, <a href="/facts/Probabilistic_reasoning/4MIPxPIJ">probabilistic</a>, etc.
The study of argumentation schemes (under various names) dates back to the time of <a href="/facts/Aristotle/U2bDlBFW">Aristotle</a>, and today argumentation schemes are used for argument identification, argument analysis, argument evaluation, and argument invention.
Some basic features of argumentation schemes can be seen by examining the scheme called argument from effect to cause, which has the form: "If A occurs, then B will (or might) occur, and in this case B occurred, so in this case A presumably occurred.": 170  This scheme may apply, for example, when someone argues: "Presumably there was a fire, since there was smoke and if there is a fire then there will be smoke." This example looks like the <a href="/facts/Formal_fallacy/1c3P1BEH">formal fallacy</a> of <a href="/facts/Affirming_the_consequent/dK0zDWFB">affirming the consequent</a> ("If A is true then B is also true, and B is true, so A must be true"), but in this example the <a href="/facts/Material_conditional/hYf4b7AE">material conditional</a> <a href="/facts/Logical_connective/VkPhUs6M">logical connective</a> ("A implies B") in the formal fallacy does not account for exactly why the <a href="/facts/Semantic_relation/EIRll6sn">semantic relation</a> between premises and conclusion in the example, namely <a href="/facts/Causality/Swh496X7">causality</a>, may be reasonable ("fire causes smoke"), while not all <a href="/facts/Validity_(logic)/oMGkywGC">formally valid</a> <a href="/facts/Conditional_proof/NWrudf6N">conditional</a> premises are reasonable (such as in the valid <a href="/facts/Modus_ponens/Wq4NcmrG">modus ponens</a> argument "If there is a cat then there is smoke, and there is a cat, so there must be smoke"). As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of <a href="/facts/Semantic/1L4WwLAP">semantic</a> (or substantive) relations that inference rules in <a href="/facts/Classical_logic/ls62MAms">classical logic</a> ignore.: 19  More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex <a href="/facts/Abductive_reasoning/QoHNqvKT">abductive</a> argumentation scheme may also apply.

Argumentation scheme open-in-new

Argumentation scheme