Glossary

A fortiori: argument suggesting that what is true of the lesser is true of the greater, or vice versa.
Ad hominem: argument against the person; usually regarded as a fallacy if it replaces
substantive argument with personal attack but sometimes an appropriate criticism of another
persons character, bias, or inconsistency.
Ambiguity: a condition in which a word could be used with multiple meanings and it is not clear
from the context of the argument which meaning is intended.
Amphiboly: a condition in which a phrase or clause could be used with multiple meanings and it
is not clear from the context of the argument which meaning is intended.
Amplitude: the number and range of arguments assembled to support a claim; the greater the
number and diversity of arguments, the greater the amplitude.
Analogy: an inference based on resemblances: things that are alike in most respects are
probably alike in the respect in question.
Antecedent: the if clause in an if-then conditional statement.
Bandwagon effect: accepting or rejecting a claim not on the basis of its merits but simply on the
basis that many others are doing so.
Begging the question: assuming in an argument something that actually requires proof.
Burden of proof: the ultimate responsibility to demonstrate that a claim or resolution is probably
true.
Burden of rejoinder: the responsibility to continue the argument after a plausible initial case has
been made for or against the resolution.
Case: the structure of arguments developed to support or to oppose the resolution.
Categorical: a form of the syllogism in which statements relate categories to other categories;
the relation is either inclusion or exclusion.
Cause: an inference that one factor somehow exerts influence on another; the inference not only
asserts a predictable relationship between the factors but also accounts for it.
Circular reasoning: repeating in the claim what is already stated in the evidence, with the result
that there is no inference or progression in the argument.
Claim: the statement of fact, definition, value, or policy that an arguer asks the audience to
accept.
Classification: reasoning by example, in which the move is from a general statement to a
specific claim.
Coalescent argumentation: argumentation in which the goal is to maximize the interests of both
parties rather than to produce a winner and a loser.
Commonplaces: general beliefs or values that are widely shared within a culture.
Composition, fallacy of: the assumption that what is true of each of the parts is necessarily true
of the whole.
Condensation symbols: symbols, such as a national flag, that embody (or condense) a wide
range of emotions or connotations; people will share a positive or negative reaction to the symbol
although they will have very different reasons for doing so.
Conditional: a form of the syllogism that begins with an if-then statement, either affirms or
denies the if or the then clause, and reaches some conclusion about the other clause.
Consequent: the then clause in an if-then conditional statement.

Controversy: a genuine disagreement between people that matters to them and that they wish to
resolve.
Convergent: an organizational pattern in which a group of independent claims, taken together,
supports the resolution or in which a group of independent pieces of evidence, taken together,
support the claim.

Correlation: a measure of the predictable relationship between two factors, of the degree to
which the presence of one predicts the presence of the other, or to which change in one predicts
change in the other.
Credibility: the believability of a source; the product of competence, trustworthiness, good will,
and dynamism as these are understood by the audience.
Critical discussion: an interpersonal argument in which both parties want to resolve rather than
merely settle the dispute, each has an equal opportunity to influence the other, both want to
resolve the dispute on the merits rather than by reference to extraneous factors, and there are no
artificial constraints on their ability to resolve the dispute.
Deduction: reasoning in which the claim follows necessarily and automatically from the evidence
and contains no new information not present at least implicitly in the evidence.
Dialectic: a process of discovering and testing knowledge through questions and answers.
Dilemma: an argument in which one presumably is confronted with an exhaustive set of
possibilities, all of which are undesirable yet one of which must be selected.
Disjunctive: form of the syllogism that begins with an either-or statement, affirms or denies one
of the options, and makes a claim about the other.
Dissociation: the breaking of a previously unitary term or concept into two separate ideas, one of
which is more positively valued than the other, then identifying ones own argument with the more
positively valued term.
Distribution: a property of terms in a categorical syllogism; a term is distributed if the statement
containing it refers to every member of the category that the term designates.
Division, fallacy of: the assumption that what is true of the whole is necessarily true of each of
the parts.
End terms: the terms in a categorical syllogism that appear in one premise as well as in the
conclusion.
Enthymeme: a structure of reasoning in which one or more of the premises is drawn (often
implicitly) from the beliefs of a particular audience; the argument is valid for that specific
audience; sometimes described as a rhetorical syllogism.
Equivocation: the shifting of the meaning or sense of a term in the course of the argument.
Essentially contested concepts: concepts that gain their meaning or significance only in
opposition to other concepts.
Evidence: statements that are offered in support of a claim.
Example: an inference that relates parts and wholes: that what is true of one is probably true of
the other; also a type of evidence that consists of specific instances of a more general claim.
Fallacy: conventionally understood as an argument that appears to be valid but is not; sometimes
used loosely to refer to any deficiency in an argument; more specifically, identifies deficiencies in
form or (according to some theorists) in procedure.
False dilemma: a purported dilemma in which the alternatives are not exhaustive (there are other
unmentioned possibilities) or in which they are not all undesirable.
Figurative analogy: an analogy that asserts a similiarity in the relationships among things,
events, places, and so on, rather than among the items themselves.
Formal reasoning: reasoning in which claims follow from evidence purely as a matter of form, so
that content and context are irrelevant; often equated with deduction, mathematical reasoning,
and/or symbolic logic.

Generalization: inference from example in which the movement is from specific evidence to a
general claim.
Hasty generalization: a generalization made on the basis of an insufficient number of examples.
Heap: the argument that, because each increment of something will be of no consequence, no
amount of increment can be of consequence and a critical mass cannot be achieved.

Induction: reasoning in which the claim follows from the evidence only with some degree of
probability and in which the claim contains new information not present in the evidence.
Inference: a mental move from evidence to a claim so that one accepts the claim on the basis of
the evidence.
Informal reasoning: reasoning that is not purely a matter of form; in which content and context
cannot be ignored.
Issue: a question that is inherent in the resolution and vital to its success; an argument that must
be established in order to establish the claim contained in the resolution.
Literal analogy: an analogy that is a direct comparison of objects, events, places, and so on,
starting with the knowledge that they are basically alike and inferring that they are probably alike
in the respect under consideration.
Logic: structures of reasoning, whether formal or informal; the concern is with the relationships
among statements rather than the relationships between statements and audiences.
Middle term: the term in a categorical syllogism that appears in the premises but not in the
conclusion.
Mini-max principle: a guideline for strategic choices in attack and defense: one should make
those choices that, with minimum effort and risk, yield the maximum gain.
Mixed controversy: a controversy in which the participants are committed to defending opposing
claims and in which, therefore, each participant assumes a burden of proof.
Multiple controversy: a controversy in which more than one claim is advanced at the same time.
Narrative: an inference from the coherence of elements in a story or plot line.
Non sequitur: an argument in which the claim has no conceivable relationship to the evidence
and does not follow from it.
Objective data: evidence that can be independently established or verified and to which it is
widely agreed.
Parallel: an organizational structure in which each claim independently establishes the resolution,
or each piece of evidence independently establishes the claim.
Personal sphere: the sphere of argument in which disputes concern only the participants and
are resolved by them; typically, argumentation is private and ephemeral.
Persuasive definition: a definition that changes the denotation of a term while retaining the
positive or negative connotation.
Phoros: the pair of terms in a figurative analogy that is better known; the relationship between
them will be used to infer a similar relationship between the other two terms.
Post hoc fallacy: the assumption that because one event followed another, the first somehow
caused the second.
Presence: salience, importance, conscious awareness.
Presumption: a descriptive characteristic of the position that would prevail in the absence of
argumentation; the arguer who does not hold presumption must present a case sufficiently
compelling to outweigh it.
Prima facie: literally, at first face; a case that, on the surface, seems to satisfy the burden of
proof unless something is said against it.
Proof: support for a claim; reasons to justify acceptance of a claim; not to be confused with
scientific demonstration or mathematical certainty.

Public sphere: the sphere of argument that is of general interest to people in their capacity as
citizens and in which everyone is eligible to participate.
Red herring: irrelevant material that may be introduced into an argument to distract or to deflect
attention.

Reductio ad absurdum: method of refutation that suggests the other arguers position leads to
unacceptable implications. Refutation: the process of criticizing, attacking, or responding to an
argument; sometimes the term is also used to embrace the process of defending, rebuilding, or
extending an argument after it has been attacked or criticized.
Resolution: the ultimate claim that an advocate seeks to prove or disprove; the substance of a
controversy; a declarative statement that responds to the central question in a controversy.
Rhetoric: study of the ways messages influence people; the faculty of discovering the available
means of persuasion in a given case.
Self-sealing: an argument that cannot be tested or falsified because its warrant accounts for all
possibilities, even those that seemingly would disconfirm the claim.
Series: an organizational structure in which each claim or piece of evidence leads to the next;
only at the end of the chain is there reached the resolution or claim in question.
Sign: an inference from the predictable relationship between factors; the presence of one
predicts the presence of the other; or change in one predicts change in the other.
Single controversy: a controversy in which only one claim is involved; the claim is advanced by
one participant and doubted by the other.
Slippery slope: an argument that suggests that a seemingly trivial or inconsequential action will
start an irreversible chain of events leading to catastrophe.
Social knowledge: the conventional wisdom or common judgment of a society that is accepted
and acted on as true.
Sphere: a metaphorical arena for argumentation in which a distinctive set of accumulated
expectations defines the context and the range of persons eligible to participate.
Stasis: the focal point of a controversy; the question on which the controversy turns; the point of
rest at which the force of an assertion is countered by the force of a denial.
Straw man: an answer to an argument that has not been advanced and that is not germane to
the matter under discussion.
Syllogism: a standard structure of reasoning that contains two premises and a conclusion; the
premises are the evidence, and the conclusion is the claim; the conclusion is derived from the
premises.
Technical sphere: the sphere of argument in which controversy takes place in specialized fields,
is governed by the conventions of the field, and is accessible to people in the field.
Theme: the pair of terms in a figurative analogy about which the conclusion will be drawn; the
relationship between the terms in the other, well-known pair will be used to infer a relationship
between the terms in this pair.
Topoi: literally, places; categories of issues that typically arise in resolutions of a given type.
Unmixed controversy: a controversy in which only one participant commits to defending a claim
and assuming a burden of proof; the other party casts doubt on that claim but does not advance a
competing claim.
Vagueness: the property of a term that is of indeterminate meaning or that has multiple
meanings, but the meaning intended in the case at hand cannot be determined.
Validity: in formal reasoning, a condition in which, if the evidence is true, the claim must be true
(to have true evidence and a false claim would be contradictory); in informal reasoning, a contentneutral test of the soundness or compelling nature of a claim.
Warrant: an authorization or license to make the inference from evidence to claim.