Reply to Yu and Zenker
Abstract: Yu and Zenker (2022) argue that the oft-made distinction between convergent and linked argument structure is problematic. If their account holds, the linked/convergent distinction, at least as I have characterized it (Freeman 2011), seems to violate the dictum that structural analysis sho...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Windsor
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Informal Logic |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/8792 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract: Yu and Zenker (2022) argue that the oft-made distinction between convergent and linked argument structure is problematic. If their account holds, the linked/convergent distinction, at least as I have characterized it (Freeman 2011), seems to violate the dictum that structural analysis should come before evaluation. In this Reply I defend the position that we do not need to estimate or determine argument strength to determine whether the premises of an argument are linked or convergent.
Résumé: Yu et Zenker (2022) soutiennent que la distinction souvent faite entre structure d’argumentation convergente et structure d’argumentation liée est problématique. Si leur explication est valable, la distinction liée/convergente, du moins telle que je l’ai caractérisée (Freeman 2011), semble violer le dicton selon lequel l’analyse structurelle doit précéder l’évaluation. Dans cette réponse, je défends la position selon laquelle nous n’avons pas besoin d’estimer ou de déterminer la force de l’argument pour déterminer si les prémisses d’un argument sont liées ou convergentes.
|
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0824-2577 2293-734X |