Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: Towards a Methodology for the Investigation of Argumentation Schemes

Abstract. This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes – a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory – are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation. The approach also provides insight into the role of critical questions. 1