LINKED or COORDINATE argumentation
Linked (or coordinated) argumentation is defined in terms of two different issues:
(i) A linked argumentation is an argumentation whose conclusion is based on a set of interrelated statements that combine to form an argument.
The issue here is the connection between statements, that, taken together, constitute a single argument supporting a conclusion. The notion of connection is constitutive of the notion of argument.
(ii) A linked argumentation is an argumentation whose arguments are sufficient for the conclusion only when considered together.
The issue here is how arguments are combined to produce a conclusive argumentation. The notion of connection is constitutive of that of conclusive argumentation.
See convergent, linked, serial argument.
1. Statements that are combined to form an argument
Linked argumentation is defined as an argumentation based on linked premises.
In logic, a premise is defined as « a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion » (Dictionary.com, Premise). In natural language, a proposition corresponds to a statement. Therefore, the expression “linked premises” may seem redundant, since speaking of a « premise » presupposes a relation to a conclusion.
In natural language, a linked argumentation is an argumentation based on linked statements–that is, on statements that combine together in order to build an argument supporting the conclusion
Syllogistic reasoning has a linked structure. For example, the statement “all members of this society are over 30 years old”, only support the conclusion “Peter is over 30 years old” when combined with the proposition “Peter is a member of this society”.
Representation:
Similarly, in Toulmin’s model, the assertive component has a linked structure. The statement “data” becomes an argument only when it is combined with the propositions that function as « warrant » and « backing », see layout.
Representation:
Arguments are based on a single statement:
– In immediate inference, such as « all A are M, so some A are M. »
– In analytical deductions, such as « If he is single, then he is unmarried. »
All other argumentations are either linked, or have one or more missing premises.
2. Convergent and linked argumentation
The concepts of linking and convergence do not describe same-level phenomena.
– Several statements are linked together to form an argument for a given conclusion.
– Several arguments converge to point to the same conclusion.
Convergent arguments consist of two or more co-oriented arguments, each of which by definition has a linked structure, as shown in the previous paragraph. The complete scheme of convergent argumentation is as follows:
2.1 Arguments Linked to Produce a Compelling Conclusion
The linking effect also affects convergent argumentation, the strength of which is greater than the sum of the individual strengths of the added arguments.
For example, several arguments from necessary signs may combine to form a necessary and sufficient bundle.
When exhaustive, case-by-case arguments benefit from a binding effect giving the whole a conclusive value that cannot be achieved by simply adding each confirmed case.
2.2 Convergent or Linked Argumentation?
To answer this question, consider a conclusion supported by a set of statements. Then, consider a particular statement, and see what happens if it is false or suppressed (after Bassham 2003):
— If what remains is still an argumentation, then it is a convergent argumentation:
Peter is smart and likable, he will be a great negotiator.
Peter is smart, he will be a great negotiator.
Peter is likable, he will be a great negotiator.
All of these argumentations are admissible; “Peter is smart” and “Peter is personable” are two convergent, co-oriented arguments that lead to the same conclusion: “ Peter will be a great negotiator”.
— If what remains is not an argumentation, we are dealing with a linked argumentation:
(1) It rained and the temperature is below 0°C, so there should be black ice on the road.
(2) It rained, there should be black ice on the road: false, unless you add the premise, « in this season, temperatures frequently drop below 0°C. »
(3) The temperature is below 0°C, so there should be black ice on the road: false, unless you add the premise, “in this country, low temperatures are generally associated with wet roads.”
Discourse (1) is an explicit, valid and sound argumentation. Discourses (2) and (3) are still argumentations, but they are valid only if missing premises are contextually supplied.
The usefulness and practicality of the convergent / linked distinction has been questioned (Goddu, 2007). Walton argues that the distinction’s merit lies in its ability to capture the different conditions of refutation for the two constructions. To refute a linked argumentation, one must show that one of the premises is false or inadmissible. To refute the conclusion of a convergent argumentation, each converging argument must be tested separately (Walton 1996, p. 175). In the case of convergent argumentation the arguer can concede one of the arguments. In the case of linked argumentation, she cannot concede a premise.
Essentially, one must decide whether the argumentation involves one or more good reasons. In other words, one must first structure the verbal flow by proposing coherent semantic blocks that support the conclusion.