Abstract

Logicians claim that to evaluate an argument, one need be concerned only with information on the topic at issue in the argument that is contained in the argument's premises and conclusion. In this study it is argued that this claim is true, for the most part, only of arguments which are taken out of context and treated as examples. The evaluation of actual argument--not context free examples of argument--typically involves the giving of a counter-argument constructed on the basis of information from the context in which the argument being assessed is given. It is further argued that logical criteria are useful in the analysis of actual argument chiefly in that they enable one to get clear on what is being argued and not on whether the argument is correct or incorrect. Finally, it is shown that the results of this study are consistent with the fact that logical criteria are derived in large measure from theoretical models for correct and incorrect argument