Arguments from Fairness and Misplaced Priorities in Political Argumentation
- Douglas Walton
- Hans Hansen
Abstract
Argumentation schemes are formal structures that are used to represent types of arguments that are prominent in natural language discourse. Recent research in argumentation studies has identified and investigated many of these schemes. The two types of arguments studied in this paper, found to be used during a pilot study of kinds of arguments used by the candidates in a recent Ontario provincial election, have not so far been formalized as schemes. We call them argument from fairness and argument from misplaced priorities. We formulate schemes for them, and analyze several examples of them from our corpus by means of constructing argument diagrams that fit the argument into the scheme.
- Full Text: PDF
- DOI:10.5539/jpl.v6n3p78
Journal Metrics
h-index (2017): 14
i10-index (2017): 39
h5-index (2017): 9
h5-median (2017): 11
Index
- Academic Journals Database
- ACNP
- ANVUR (Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes)
- Berkeley Library
- CNKI Scholar
- COPAC
- CrossRef
- DTU Library
- EBSCOhost
- Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB)
- EuroPub Database
- Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)
- Genamics JournalSeek
- GETIT@YALE (Yale University Library)
- Ghent University Library
- Google Scholar
- Harvard Library
- HeinOnline
- INDEX ISLAMICUS
- Infotrieve
- Jisc Library Hub Discover
- JournalGuide
- JournalTOCs
- LOCKSS
- MIAR
- Mir@bel
- NewJour
- Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD)
- Open J-Gate
- PKP Open Archives Harvester
- Publons
- Pubmed journal list
- RePEc
- ROAD
- Scilit
- SHERPA/RoMEO
- Standard Periodical Directory
- Stanford Libraries
- UCR Library
- Ulrich's
- UniCat
- Universe Digital Library
- UoS Library
- WorldCat
- Zeitschriften Daten Bank (ZDB)
Contact
- William TaiEditorial Assistant
- jpl@ccsenet.org