A Practical Study of Argument¶
Govier. (2009). A Practical Study of Argument.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Fallacy of Composition
- Examples include concluding that a crowd must be easy to move because each person is mobile, that universal saving must increase total income because saving benefits one household, that a team must be excellent because each member is individually excellent, or that a large structure must be light because each component is light
This sourceGovier's informal-logic textbook supplies the general diagnosis these examples instantiate - a whole is characterised by its parts in particular relationships, so predicate transfer needs warrant; the saving-and-income case is Keynes's paradox of thrift and is not sourced here.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Examples include concluding that a crowd must be easy to move because each person is mobile, that universal saving must increase total income because saving benefits one household, that a team must be excellent because each member is individually excellent, or that a large structure must be light because each component is light
Mechanisms¶
- Premise Relevance & Acceptability Test
- Its strength is that it targets the two most common material defects at once, matching the informal-logic tradition that a good argument's premises must be acceptable and relevant to its conclusion (with sufficiency as a third criterion handled elsewhere).
This sourceStates Govier's argument-cogency criteria that premises must be acceptable and relevant to the conclusion.
- Its strength is that it targets the two most common material defects at once, matching the informal-logic tradition that a good argument's premises must be acceptable and relevant to its conclusion (with sufficiency as a third criterion handled elsewhere).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4e3dc2a75025 · see in the full table