{"id":5109,"date":"2021-10-21T14:16:07","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T12:16:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5109"},"modified":"2025-06-13T14:21:23","modified_gmt":"2025-06-13T12:21:23","slug":"linked-argumentation-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/linked-argumentation-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Linked Argumentation"},"content":{"rendered":"

LINKED or COORDINATE argumentation<\/span><\/h1>\n

Linked<\/em> (or coordinated<\/em>) argumentation is defined in terms of two different issues:<\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0<\/strong>A linked argumentation is an argumentation whose conclusion is based on a set of interrelated statements that combine<\/em> to form an argument<\/span>.
\nThe issue here is the connection between statements<\/em>, that, taken together, constitute a single argument supporting a conclusion. The notion of connection is constitutive of the notion of argument<\/em>.<\/p>\n

(ii)<\/strong> A linked argumentation is an argumentation whose arguments are sufficient<\/em> for the conclusion only when considered together<\/em>.<\/span>
\nThe issue here is how arguments<\/em> are combined to produce a conclusive argumentation. The notion of connection is constitutive of that of conclusive<\/em> argumentation<\/em>.
\nSee convergent, linked, serial<\/a> argument.<\/p>\n

1. Statements that are combined to form an argument<\/span><\/h2>\n

Linked argumentation <\/em>is defined as an argumentation based on linked premises<\/em>.
\nIn logic, a premise<\/em> is defined as \u00ab\u00a0a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion\u00a0\u00bb (Dictionary.com, Premise<\/em>). In natural language, a proposition <\/em>corresponds to a statement<\/em>. Therefore, the expression \u201clinked premises\u201d may seem redundant, since speaking of a \u00ab\u00a0premise\u00a0\u00bb presupposes a relation to a conclusion.
\nIn natural language, a linked argumentation is an argumentation based on linked statements<\/em>\u2013that is, on statements that combine together in order to build an argument supporting the conclusion\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Syllogistic reasoning has a linked structure. For example, the statement \u201call members of this society are over 30 years old<\/em>\u201d, only support the conclusion \u201cPeter is over 30 years old<\/em>\u201d when combined with the proposition \u201cPeter is a member of this society<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Representation:<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, in Toulmin’s model, the assertive component has a linked structure. The statement \u201cdata\u201d becomes an argument only when it is combined with the propositions that function as \u00ab\u00a0warrant\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0backing\u00a0\u00bb, see layout<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Representation: <\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Arguments are based on a single statement:
\n\u2013 In immediate inference<\/strong>, such as \u00ab\u00a0all A<\/strong> are M<\/strong>, so some A<\/strong> are M<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00bb
\n\u2013 In analytical deductions<\/strong>, such as \u00ab\u00a0If he is single, then he is unmarried.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

All other argumentations are either linked, or have one or more missing premises.<\/p>\n

2. Convergent and linked argumentation<\/span><\/h2>\n

The concepts of linking and convergence do not describe same-level phenomena.
\n\u2013 Several statements are linked<\/span><\/strong> together to form an argument for a given conclusion.
\n\u2013 Several arguments converge<\/strong><\/span> to point to the same conclusion.<\/p>\n

Convergent<\/em> arguments consist of two or more co-oriented arguments, each of which by definition has a linked<\/em> structure, as shown in the previous paragraph. The complete scheme of convergent argumentation is as follows:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/p>\n

2.1 Arguments Linked to Produce a Compelling Conclusion<\/span><\/h3>\n

The linking effect also affects convergent argumentation, the strength of which is greater than the sum of the individual strengths of the added arguments.
\nFor example, several arguments from necessary\u00a0signs<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>may combine to form a necessary and sufficient bundle.
\nWhen exhaustive, case-by-case<\/a> arguments<\/strong> benefit from a binding effect giving the whole a conclusive value that cannot be achieved by simply adding each confirmed case.<\/p>\n

2.2 Convergent or Linked Argumentation?<\/span><\/h2>\n

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):<\/p>\n

\u2014 If what remains is still an argumentation<\/strong><\/span>, then it is a convergent<\/em><\/strong><\/span> argumentation:<\/p>\n

Peter is smart and likable, he will be a great negotiator.
\nPeter is smart, he will be a great negotiator.
\nPeter is likable, he will be a great negotiator.<\/p>\n

All of these argumentations are admissible; \u201cPeter is smart<\/em>\u201d and \u201cPeter is personable<\/em>\u201d are two convergent, co-oriented arguments that lead to the same conclusion: \u201c Peter will be a great negotiator<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u2014 If what remains is not an argumentation<\/strong><\/span>, we are dealing with a linked<\/strong><\/em><\/span> argumentation:<\/p>\n

(1) It rained and the temperature is below 0\u00b0C, so there should be black ice on the road.
\n(2) It rained, there should be black ice on the road: false, unless you add the premise, \u00ab\u00a0in this season, temperatures frequently drop below 0\u00b0C.<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb
\n(3) The temperature is below 0\u00b0C, so there should be black ice on the road: false, unless you add the premise, \u201cin this country, low temperatures are generally associated with wet roads.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 In the case of linked argumentation, she cannot concede a premise.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LINKED or COORDINATE argumentation Linked (or coordinated) argumentation is defined in terms of two different issues: (i)\u00a0A 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5109"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14359,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5109\/revisions\/14359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}