causal arguments critical thinking

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Causal reasoning

​Suppose a bunch of people get upset stomachs after a dinner party. Here are the details of what the various people at the dinner party ate:

Foods eaten by people who got sick

• Person A: ham, potato salad, coleslaw
• Person B: ham, rice salad, lettuce salad
• Person C: ham, pasta salad, carrot salad.

Foods eaten by people who didn’t get sick

• Person D: chicken, rice salad, coleslaw
• Person E: sausages, pasta salad, lettuce salad
• Person F: bean salad, potato salad, carrot salad

Probably, the ham caused the illness.

• All those who got sick ate ham
• All those who didn’t get sick didn’t eat ham
• There’s nothing else that was eaten by all and only those who got sick
• Eating bad ham is the kind of thing that we expect to causes upset stomachs – we know roughly how this happens (unlike, for example, something else that the people who got sick might have had in common such as all wearing red shirts).  

Note that it could have been true that the ham caused the illness even if it wasn’t true that all and only the ham-eaters got sick – eating ham might have raised the probability of someone’s getting sick without guaranteeing that they would get sick (some people have cast-iron constitutions).

Causal statements are sentences which say that one thing causes, or doesn’t cause, another thing.  For example, smoking causes lung cancer, drinking coffee after dinner makes me stay awake, reading logic textbooks after dinner puts me to sleep.

Causal statements are made all the time, both in everyday conversation and in the context of scientific research. We need to know what kinds of effects our actions and other people’s actions are likely to have, so that we can decide what we should do in any given situation. Doctors often need to know the causes of diseases in order to know how to treat them. Airlines need to know what caused a particular plane-crash so that they can ensure that the same thing won’t cause another one.

Causal arguments consist of a causal claim plus the reasons we have for believing that claim.  Suppose that American Airlines claims that their plane hit a mountain because the altimeter wasn’t working properly and visibility was extremely poor because of low cloud. Their reasons for believing this claim might include records which show that the altimeter was reading fifteen thousand feet just before the plane hit the mountain, when the mountain is nothing like that tall; a tape recording of the pilot’s exclamation as he saw the mountain emerge from the fog in front of him, and so on. If you list these reasons as premises and the causal claim as a conclusion, you have a causal argument.

Causal arguments are non-deductive. In the plane case, for example, you can list all the evidence you want and it will still not be 100% certain that you’re right about what caused the crash. But it can still be a very good argument.

Consider a more general causal claim: Attending St Peter’s Cambridge causes people to get better NCEA results. Suppose we do the stats and it turns out that indeed, the average marks of students at St Peter’s are higher than the average mark for the country at large. Does that provide good reason to believe the causal claim?

No, not on its own. Correlation is not proof of causation. There are other possibilities that you should consider before accepting a causal argument like this one.

• Coincidence. Might it be pure chance that students at St Peter’s did better?
• Common cause. Perhaps there is some underlying factor which both makes it likely that students will go to St Peter’s and makes it likely that they will get good marks: having wealthy parents, perhaps, or having parents who care about their children’s education and therefore are likely to both send them to a school with a good reputation and to make sure they do their homework.If you wanted to rule out those alternatives, you should conduct a more complex study. Take a group of students which are the same as your group of St Peter’s students in all relevant respects except for which school they go to. Then see if the St Peter’s students do better than this control group. If they do, and you’ve really thought of all other relevant factors, you then have much better reason than before to think your causal claim – going to that school causes you to get better marks – is justified.
• Opposite direction of causation. I don’t think this applies in this case, but sometimes when people infer causation from correlation, they mistake the cause for the effect. Here is an example. New Hebrides Islanders used to believe that lice caused good health. Why? All the healthy islanders were infested with lice, while sick islanders weren’t. In fact, it turned out, the causal connection went the other way. Lice would jump ship when their hosts got a fever, because they don’t like high temperatures – so getting sick caused the absence of lice, rather than the absence of lice causing you to get sick. Just from the correlation between health and the presence of lice, you can’t infer that the lice cause good health: in this case, the causing went in the other direction.How was the truth about this discovered? I don’t know. But it might have been discovered by paying close attention to the order of events. If X doesn’t come before Y, then X can’t cause Y.  (But if X does come before Y, that doesn’t necessarily mean X causes Y, of course.)

Having a theory to explain how the causal process in question works is also important.  If you discover on independent grounds that lice don’t like high temperatures, that gives extra reason to think that illness causes lack of lice rather lack of lice causing illness.

Here is a causal argument:

P. Most people who take mega-doses of Vitamin C when they have a cold recover from their cold within a week.                                                C. Mega-doses of Vitamin C cure colds. 

We are only justified in believing this conclusion on the basis of this premise if we have considered and ruled out the likely alternatives.  

It might be that people naturally recover from colds within a week with or without Vitamin C. This would be easily tested by collected data about the recovery speed of people who don’t take megadoses of Vitamin C.

Or perhaps the people who take Vitamin C are people who care about their health and are inclined, when they have a cold, to eat chicken soup and go to bed early, and perhaps those are the factors that cause them to recover quickly, rather than the Vitamin C. The way to test this would be to observe a control group who are exactly like your test group in all relevant respects (diet, sleeping habits, etc) except that they don’t take Vitamin C, and compare the two groups.

Causal reasoning Copyright © 2024 by Stephanie Gibbons and Justine Kingsbury is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Key Concept

Causal Argument : argues that there is a cause and effect relationship between certain conditions

Sometimes the cause and effect relationship between certain things can seem really clear cut. For example, if someone drops a vase, and the vase hits the floor and breaks, obviously that happened because the person dropped it. Or we can think of this scenario like this:

Seems pretty straightforward, right? But what if it’s not? What if the cause and effect relationship between the vase being dropped and the vase breaking is a little more complex? Let’s continue to explore this hypothetical situation more: couldn’t we also argue that the vase broke not because it was dropped, but because it hit the floor? If so, then our analysis of this situation would look a little different–maybe something like this:

Still seems pretty straightforward? Well, it certainly is if you’re considering only the direct causes of the vase breaking. What if we also consider indirect causes of the vase breaking. By bringing in indirect causes of the vase breaking things get a little more complex. For example, what if, through further research, we learn that the vase was dropped because the person holding it was startled by a nearby fireworks display (an indirect cause)? Our analysis then might look something like this:

Through further inspection, things could possibly become increasingly complicated. (Remember, as good researchers, it’s incumbent on us to always dig deeper when we’re researching!) For example, perhaps the vase hit a hardwood surface, as a opposed to a softly carpeted surface. Is the interior decorator implicated in things now? Are the interior decorator’s design choices an indirect cause of the vase breaking? Or, perhaps the person who commissioned the fireworks mailed out an announcement to notify those nearby that the fireworks would be happening and the person holding the vase thought it was junk mail and threw it in the trash without reading it. Is the holder of the vase, then, responsible? If so, it looks like we’re right back where we started!

While we’re not here to adjudicate who is responsible for the vase breaking, what the above hypothetical situation illustrates is that what we often think of as a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship can often be more complicated than it seems upon further inspection. Equally, this scenario illustrates how one can structure a causal argument, which argues that there is a cause and effect relationship between certain conditions.

And while the above scenario might seem fairly innocuous, that’s not always the case for causal arguments in the real world. Take for instance the 1985 firebombing of the MOVE house in West Philadelphia. MOVE is an organization that began in the early 1970’s. They practiced a communal lifestyle and argued in favor of justice for all, specifically for racial justice. After several years of growing tensions between the Philadelphia Police Department involving, among other things, the death of Officer James J. Ramp, an explosive device was dropped on the residence where the MOVE members lived. That explosive device detonated, and the building subsequently caught fire. The fire was deliberately not extinguished immediately. Eleven members of MOVE died in the blaze, including five children. Furthermore, the fire spread to the rowhomes of the nearby residents, destroying them as well. [1] The official commission that investigated this event determined that while the city’s handling of it was “unconscionable,” no one from the city government was charged with any wrongdoing.

This event raises a number of questions about causal arguments–questions that are still debated to this day, pertaining to who should be held responsible for the death and destruction caused by this event:

• Should the then-mayor of Philadelphia (Mayor Wilson Goode) be held responsible, since he approved the bombing?
• Should the Fire Commissioner be held responsible for not taking the initiative to quickly stop the blaze once it started? Or should the Police Commissioner be held responsible for not determining that the fire was a true danger to many, which he should have communicated to the Fire Commissioner? (Both the Police Commissioner and Fire Commissioner were at the scene, monitoring the events of the day.)
• Do the members of MOVE share some of the responsibility for engaging in actions that could have been perceived as having provoked the police and the city? Equally, do they share some of the responsibility for failing to evacuate the building once it caught fire?

Again, it’s not our responsibility to adjudicate this particular situation, but what’s important is that it raises a number of questions about causal relationships and highlights the way that the circumstances that caused an event can open be open to interpretation.

For our purposes, however, here is how we can think about making causal arguments:

Within your general topic, identify an issue about the causes or consequences of a particular phenomenon and create a thesis that asserts which cause(s) or consequence(s) seem most relevant for better understanding and responding to the problem.  Be careful to distinguish between types of causes (direct vs. indirect), to acknowledge other important causes/contributing factors, and to avoid inductive fallacies in your reasoning. To generate ideas, consider the causes or consequences of trends related to your topic, or the consequences of actions being taken or proposed.

Recapping the main ideas behind causal arguments:

• Causal arguments argue that there is a cause and effect relationship between things
• Causal arguments use evidence to say that one condition contributed to the existence of another condition.
• To learn more about the complexities of the MOVE bombing, check out David Osder’s 2013 film Let the Fire Burn (Zeitgeist Films). ↵

College Comp II Copyright © 2019 by Jude Miller is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python’s Flying Circus : 3

2.1 Identifying Arguments

People often use “argument” to refer to a dispute or quarrel between people. In critical thinking, an argument is defined as

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises.

There are three important things to remember here:

• Arguments contain statements.
• They have a conclusion.
• They have at least one premise

Arguments contain statements, or declarative sentences. Statements, unlike questions or commands, have a truth value. Statements assert that the world is a particular way; questions do not. For example, if someone asked you what you did after dinner yesterday evening, you wouldn’t accuse them of lying. When the world is the way that the statement says that it is, we say that the statement is true. If the statement is not true, it is false.

One of the statements in the argument is called the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is intended to be proved. Consider the following argument:

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I. Susan did well in Calculus I. So, Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Here the conclusion is that Susan should do well in Calculus II. The other two sentences are premises. Premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

2.1.1 Standard Form

Now, to make the argument easier to evaluate, we will put it into what is called “standard form.” To put an argument in standard form, write each premise on a separate, numbered line. Draw a line underneath the last premise, the write the conclusion underneath the line.

• Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I.
• Susan did well in Calculus I.
• Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Now that we have the argument in standard form, we can talk about premise 1, premise 2, and all clearly be referring to the same thing.

2.1.2 Indicator Words

Unfortunately, when people present arguments, they rarely put them in standard form. So, we have to decide which statement is intended to be the conclusion, and which are the premises. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the conclusion comes at the end. The conclusion is often at the beginning of the passage, but could even be in the middle. A better way to identify premises and conclusions is to look for indicator words. Indicator words are words that signal that statement following the indicator is a premise or conclusion. The example above used a common indicator word for a conclusion, ‘so.’ The other common conclusion indicator, as you can probably guess, is ‘therefore.’ This table lists the indicator words you might encounter.

Each argument will likely use only one indicator word or phrase. When the conlusion is at the end, it will generally be preceded by a conclusion indicator. Everything else, then, is a premise. When the conclusion comes at the beginning, the next sentence will usually be introduced by a premise indicator. All of the following sentences will also be premises.

For example, here’s our previous argument rewritten to use a premise indicator:

Susan should do well in Calculus II, because Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I, and Susan did well in Calculus I.

Sometimes, an argument will contain no indicator words at all. In that case, the best thing to do is to determine which of the premises would logically follow from the others. If there is one, then it is the conclusion. Here is an example:

Spot is a mammal. All dogs are mammals, and Spot is a dog.

The first sentence logically follows from the others, so it is the conclusion. When using this method, we are forced to assume that the person giving the argument is rational and logical, which might not be true.

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

One thing that complicates our task of identifying arguments is that there are many passages that, although they look like arguments, are not arguments. The most common types are:

• Explanations
• Mere asssertions
• Conditional statements
• Loosely connected statements

Explanations can be tricky, because they often use one of our indicator words. Consider this passage:

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

If this were an argument, then the conclusion would be that Abraham Lincoln died, since the other statement is introduced by a premise indicator. If this is an argument, though, it’s a strange one. Do you really think that someone would be trying to prove that Abraham Lincoln died? Surely everyone knows that he is dead. On the other hand, there might be people who don’t know how he died. This passage does not attempt to prove that something is true, but instead attempts to explain why it is true. To determine if a passage is an explanation or an argument, first find the statement that looks like the conclusion. Next, ask yourself if everyone likely already believes that statement to be true. If the answer to that question is yes, then the passage is an explanation.

Mere assertions are obviously not arguments. If a professor tells you simply that you will not get an A in her course this semester, she has not given you an argument. This is because she hasn’t given you any reasons to believe that the statement is true. If there are no premises, then there is no argument.

Conditional statements are sentences that have the form “If…, then….” A conditional statement asserts that if something is true, then something else would be true also. For example, imagine you are told, “If you have the winning lottery ticket, then you will win ten million dollars.” What is being claimed to be true, that you have the winning lottery ticket, or that you will win ten million dollars? Neither. The only thing claimed is the entire conditional. Conditionals can be premises, and they can be conclusions. They can be parts of arguments, but that cannot, on their own, be arguments themselves.

Finally, consider this passage:

I woke up this morning, then took a shower and got dressed. After breakfast, I worked on chapter 2 of the critical thinking text. I then took a break and drank some more coffee….

This might be a description of my day, but it’s not an argument. There’s nothing in the passage that plays the role of a premise or a conclusion. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Remember that arguments need a conclusion, there must be something that is the statement to be proved. Lacking that, it simply isn’t an argument, no matter how much it looks like one.

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine what kind of argument it is. We initially categorize arguments as either deductive or inductive, defined roughly in terms of their goals. In deductive arguments, the truth of the premises is intended to absolutely establish the truth of the conclusion. For inductive arguments, the truth of the premises is only intended to establish the probable truth of the conclusion. We’ll focus on deductive arguments first, then examine inductive arguments in later chapters.

Once we have established that an argument is deductive, we then ask if it is valid. To say that an argument is valid is to claim that there is a very special logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Another way to state this is

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

Note that claiming that an argument is valid is not the same as claiming that it has a true conclusion, nor is it to claim that the argument has true premises. Claiming that an argument is valid is claiming nothing more that the premises, if they were true , would be enough to make the conclusion true. For example, is the following argument valid or not?

• If pigs fly, then an increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.
• An increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.

The argument is indeed valid. If the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also. What about this argument?

• All dogs are mammals
• Spot is a mammal.
• Spot is a dog.

In this case, both of the premises are true and the conclusion is true. The question to ask, though, is whether the premises absolutely guarantee that the conclusion is true. The answer here is no. The two premises could be true and the conclusion false if Spot were a cat, whale, etc.

Neither of these arguments are good. The second fails because it is invalid. The two premises don’t prove that the conclusion is true. The first argument is valid, however. So, the premises would prove that the conclusion is true, if those premises were themselves true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I guess, considering what would be dropping from the sky) pigs don’t fly.

These examples give us two important ways that deductive arguments can fail. The can fail because they are invalid, or because they have at least one false premise. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, an argument can be both invalid and have a false premise.

If the argument is valid, and has all true premises, then it is a sound argument. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

Inductive arguments are never valid, since the premises only establish the probable truth of the conclusion. So, we evaluate inductive arguments according to their strength. A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises really do make the conclusion probably true. An argument is weak if the truth of the premises fail to establish the probable truth of the conclusion.

There is a significant difference between valid/invalid and strong/weak. If an argument is not valid, then it is invalid. The two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There can be no such thing as an argument being more valid than another valid argument. Validity is all or nothing. Inductive strength, however, is on a continuum. A strong inductive argument can be made stronger with the addition of another premise. More evidence can raise the probability of the conclusion. A valid argument cannot be made more valid with an additional premise. Why not? If the argument is valid, then the premises were enough to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Adding another premise won’t give any more guarantee of truth than was already there. If it could, then the guarantee wasn’t absolute before, and the original argument wasn’t valid in the first place.

2.3 Counterexamples

One way to prove an argument to be invalid is to use a counterexample. A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument above:

By pointing out that Spot could have been a cat, I have told a story in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Here’s another one:

• If it is raining, then the sidewalks are wet.
• The sidewalks are wet.
• It is raining.

The sprinklers might have been on. If so, then the sidewalks would be wet, even if it weren’t raining.

Counterexamples can be very useful for demonstrating invalidity. Keep in mind, though, that validity can never be proved with the counterexample method. If the argument is valid, then it will be impossible to give a counterexample to it. If you can’t come up with a counterexample, however, that does not prove the argument to be valid. It may only mean that you’re not creative enough.

• An argument is a set of statements; one is the conclusion, the rest are premises.
• The conclusion is the statement that the argument is trying to prove.
• The premises are the reasons offered for believing the conclusion to be true.
• Explanations, conditional sentences, and mere assertions are not arguments.
• Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
• Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true.
• In a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• In an invalid argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• A sound argument is valid and has all true premises.
• An inductively strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable.
• An inductively weak argument is one in which the truth of the premises do not make the conclusion probably true.
• A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false. Counterexamples can be used to prove that arguments are deductively invalid.

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

Causal Arguments

Sample causal argument.

Now that you have had the chance to learn about writing a causal argument, it’s time to see what one might look like. Linked, you’ll see a sample causal argument essay written following MLA formatting guidelines.

• Sample Causal Argument. Authored by : OWL Excelsior Writing Lab. Provided by : Excelsior College. Located at : http://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/argumentative-purposes/argumentative-purposes-sample-causal-argument/ . Project : ENG 101. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Logical Fallacies: How They Undermine Critical Thinking and How to Avoid Them

This paper explains how to recognize and steer clear of numerous common logical fallacies, ranging from ad hominem arguments to wishful thinking, that can damage an argument. Critical thinking is essential in the digital age, where we must question false or flawed claims. It helps us base our decisions on facts and evidence, not feelings or fallacious reasoning. Unfortunately, many employers struggle to find workers with this skill. To develop it, one must learn how to understand and evaluate the essence of an argument.

Related Papers

claudia cuadro

rohmani indah

Critical thinking skill has been a crucial issue in the context of higher education as the benchmark of qualified graduates. It is integrated in all aspects and involved in all of the courses as elaborated in the syllabus. Assessing the critical thinking becomes prominent to make sure that its quality is maintained. The real reflection of critical thinking can be traced through students’ ability to express their thought in the form of arguments. Good arguments must be supported not only by convincing claims and careful choice of supporting details but also on the rhetorical pattern which is free from fallacious statements. Identifying the fallacious statement which include recognizing the fallacy varieties assures the quality of their critical thinking. This study investigates the fallacious statements in the argumentative writing of the students of UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang who argue on global issues. The faulty reasoning is found in terms of the the discussion on the topics...

Charlene Tan

This chapter introduces key concepts in critical thinking using films and music videos. It focuses on the critical thinking skills needed for the identification, analysis and evaluation of arguments. Based on 12 key questions, readers are introduced to core features of an argument such as “premise”, “conclusion” and “assumption”. The main types of arguments and the criteria for evaluating these arguments are also discussed. Throughout the chapter, films such as A Beautiful Mind, Bowling for Columbine and CSI: Miami, and music videos of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, Britney Spears’ “Toxic”, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” and others are used to illustrate the concepts.

Abdulvahit Çakır

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of raising awareness about reasoning fallacies on the development of critical reading skills of the first grade students in the ELT department, Gazi Faculty of Education. It was evaluated via a 56-question reasoning fallacies test confining seven questions to each fallacy studied in this research. Although there are numerous kinds of fallacies, between 14 and 191 to be more precise, the common ones were chosen in accordance with the reasoning fallacies test for practical reasons. In addition to this, during the literature review, some other common fallacies were determined and included in this dissertation. This study compared the students trained explicitly about questioning the arguments and argumentative texts on the one side and the students in the ordinary reading classes following the regular syllabus in terms of awareness about reasoning fallacies. A true experimental design was used to collect data through pre- and post-tests. ...

Robert Gass

The ability to think, reason, and argue well depends, among other things, on students’ ability to identify and avoid informal fallacies. This exercise enhances students’ understanding of fallacies through an experiential activity in which they construct fallacies on their own and identify fallacies created by other students. In the process, they consider the ethical and practical considerations of encountering fallacies in "real life." The exercise can be used in a variety of college courses, including public speaking, logic, debate, argumentation, critical thinking, writing, rhetoric, and others.

Sandra Dwyer

Hal Campbell

Critical thinking by definition can be explained as the determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which we should accept or reject it. Critical thinking helps us to formulate a judgment as to whether a position, theory, or idea is incomplete or unclear, insufficiently supported by the contentions made in its behalf, or whether the argument is unconvincing, or simply wrong. One of the principle tenants of critical thinking is that the ideas, arguments, and conclusions being offered are critiqued and not the person making them. As you can tell from the dogma and discourse going on in the media these days, this isn’t a widely embraced approach amongst politicians, pundits, reporters, and the general public. It is perfectly acceptable to come to a conclusion about the person making the argument, but that comes much later and is based upon the position they took on the issue and the rationale they used to argue their point. It is also a measure of how often they are perceived as inaccurate, uninformed, or simply incorrect about an issue that they postulate, and what strategies they use routinely to manipulate the people they are endeavoring to persuade to their point of view.

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines

Sharon Bailin , Mark Battersby

Sabina Saldanha

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Cherie K. Miller

ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal

Ide Bagus Siaputra

Khánh Linh Nguyễn

Mark Battersby

Maarten Boudry

Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities

Galina Jasečková

Carolyn Hartz

Ricardo Arieira

Lissa Schneider

Davy Budiono, M.Hum.

Dr Jason J Braithwaite

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation

brahim khartite

Educational Theory

Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon

In S. Oswald & T. Herman (Eds.) Rhetoric and Cognition, Bern, Peter Lang, p. 89-110.

Vasco Correia

John Stamper

Informal Logic

Jeffrey Maynes

Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 28, 1991. pp. 1-22.

Douglas Walton

Logic and Logical Philosophy

Katarzyna Budzynska

Proceedings 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment, Sellami A. S. (Ed.), pp. 199-214.

Manuele De Conti

Robert Ricco

Philosophy and Rhetoric

Eugen Octav Popa

Effective Executive

Michael Walton

Mark Weinstein

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024