This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard
This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
ABSTRACT: This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-el...
This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their cri...
This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
AbstractWe present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking serious...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
ABSTRACT: This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-el...
This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their cri...
This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
AbstractWe present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking serious...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have int...
This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation sc...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the p...