Argumentation Schemes¶
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Associative Property Transfer
- In rhetoric and informal logic it is guilt by association, appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, and ad hominem by company kept — all attributing truth-status or credibility through associative rather than evidential links.
This sourceCatalogues argumentation schemes and their fallacious uses — guilt by association, appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, ad hominem — in which credibility or truth-status is attributed through associative rather than evidential links.
- In rhetoric and informal logic it is guilt by association, appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, and ad hominem by company kept — all attributing truth-status or credibility through associative rather than evidential links.
Domain-specific¶
- Topoi
- Do other experts agree?)
This sourceThe argument-from-expert-opinion scheme, its premises (E is an expert in a domain containing A; E asserts A; so A) and its six critical questions, including credibility, field and consistency with other experts.
SupportedVerified against the source
- Do other experts agree?)
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported. 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:9c2c1cc1b015 · see in the full table