|
Abstract Argument diagramming is an important tache in analyzing argumentation texts， which is also a universal analytical technique in the fields of argumentation theory， study on fallacy and critical thinking. The superiority of argument diagramming lies in that it can intuitively reveal argumentative endorsements to describe the macro structure in argumentation. However， the recognition of linked structure and convergent structure is a thorny and important problem in the process of describing argumentation structures confronted with complicated argumentations in the world. Scholars in logic intend to discriminate the two clearly. There are mainly four proposals to discriminate them in terms of discriminating standards: logic union， reasoning chain convergence， modal combination and relevance linkage. Nevertheless， the four proposals still have their own loopholes． The existing four proposals start from four aspects respectively: whether the premise is deduced alone， whether backward reasoning is workable， modality and relevance. Their loopholes result from their sole dimension， which fail to capture the nature of link and convergence structure. The proposed one in this paper centers on the ambiguity of the key concept of logic support and the intended downward arrow's ambiguity in argument diagramming. Two different logic structures may come from two different interpretations on logic support and the arrow. When the premise S supports the conclusion P via providing some evidence， that is， it is possible that there will be other premises support P jointly. This implicates the correlation of argumentation and link. When S provides sufficient reasons to deduce the conclusion alone， this implicates the correlation of argumentation and convergence. The assertion which is concluded from a set of premise or premises providing some strong reasons to support the conclusion or providing some weak reasons to support the conclusion is a modal assertion． The new proposal introduces argumentation strength into modality， which assumes the acceptance of the premise. Based on this， the conclusion supported via a premise or a set of premises and the assertion concluded from a weak support are modal assertions. While， the ambiguity between relevance and modality is the very problem for the terms in Thomas， Rowen and Yanal． The new proposal provides detailed norms for constructing linked structure and convergent structure， in which we combine three aspects of ″whether in accordance with the premise that can be launched separately″， ″every premise's contribution is balanced″ and ″when a premise is false， if other premise can deduce″ with five argument diagrammings of ″strong combination″， ″combination of differentiation″， ″equilibrium convergence″， ″differentiation of convergence″ and ″weak convergence″. The five diagrammings cover five situations in determining linked argumentation and convergent argumentation． A matrix graph is worked out based on the analysis of five argument structures of three norms. It can be concluded form the graph that considering the adequacy of the premise is essentially the discussion of modality， discussing modality to some extent concerns the strength of premise supporting the conclusion， namely the balance of the contribution. As analyzing modality， we also have to take into account correlation. We could come to the conclusion through analyzing the correlation of premise and conclusion and the weight of premise. 1.When the premise's contribution is balanced: if the conclusion can be deduced from promise solely， the structure is convergent structure; if the conclusion can not be deduced directly， the one is linked structure． 2.When the premise contribution is not balanced:（1） if the conclusion can be deduced from the promise solely， under the condition that one of premises is false， the remaining premises can still deduce the conclusion， the structure is convergent structure;（2） if the conclusion can be deduced from promise solely， and when one of premises is false， the remaining premises can not deduce the conclusion directly， the structure is linked structure.（3） if the conclusion cannot be deduced from promise solely， the structure is linked structure． In a word， there exists a clear demarcation between convergent structure and linked structure， but the demarcation is full of disputes and is different on intuition judgment. In accordance with our analysis， correlation and solid arguments provide a clear reason for distinguish convergent structure from linked structure. Starting from distinguishing link and modality， the new proposal reaches a definite reason to diversely express that premise supports conclusion through multi-dimensional consideration and analysis. It further offers detailed norms to discriminate the two via reasonably revising argumentation diagramming of linked structure and convergent structure．
|
|
|
|
|
|
