Home Berries One of the main arguments in Types of arguments. The use of arguments of different types in judicial speech. - proof of promise

Berries

One of the main arguments in Types of arguments. The use of arguments of different types in judicial speech. - proof of promise

Argumentation is a speech procedure that serves to substantiate a certain statement using other statements. Argumentation has two aspects - logical and communicative.

Logically argumentation acts as a substantiation of a certain statement (thesis) with the help of other statements (reasons, arguments, arguments). This way of reasoning is characteristic of science. Outside of science, the thesis and arguments may be based on religious faith, the strength of tradition, the opinion of authority, etc.

In terms of communication argumentation is the process of interaction between the argumentator (the person who justifies something) and the recipient (the person to whom the justification is addressed). The ultimate goal of this process is the formation of some belief. Argumentation achieves this goal if the recipient has perceived, understood and accepted the thesis of the argumentator.

The main elements of the logical structure of argumentation are thesis, arguments and demonstration.

Thesis- this is a statement that is justified in the process of argumentation, that which is argued. It is the main element of the argument. Someone's opinion, a hypothetical answer to a question, etc. can be accepted as a thesis. In all cases, the thesis is something that goes beyond the generally accepted in this community, so there is a need for its argumentation.

Arguments(reasons, arguments) - these are statements that are used in the argumentation, what this thesis is argued with. Arguments serve as the foundation of argumentation.

In scientific argumentation, the following types of arguments are distinguished:

1. sayings about verified facts - knowledge about events or phenomena established with the help of direct perception or experimental study of the subject of science.

2. Definitions- statements that involve the expression of an unknown name through known ones, so they must be true.

3. Axioms- provisions that are not proven in science, but are accepted as true when substantiating its other provisions. Their truth is confirmed by centuries of practice. Axiomatic
some provisions of mathematics, mechanics, physics, logic, etc. have a character.

If the argument is built on the basis of axioms, certain logical requirements are imposed on them:

]). The chosen system of axioms must be consistent, i.e., relying on it, it is impossible to prove any statement and the negation of this statement at once.

2). The system of axioms must be complete, i.e., all the true propositions of a given science can be derived from it.

3). The axioms must be independent, i.e., none of the axioms can be derived from other axioms of the same science.

4. Previously proven positions of science(laws, theorems).

The logical connection between arguments and thesis is called demonstration(lat. demonstratio - show). At deductive demonstrations the thesis necessarily follows from the arguments, its truth is guaranteed. At inductive demonstration (when the thesis of general content is substantiated by particular cases, examples) demonstration in the form of analogy, comparison, etc. ensures the probabilistic nature of the conclusion.

Types of argumentation are distinguished according to various criteria:

1) by the nature of the argument expressing reliable or hypothetical knowledge (proof, refutation, explanation, confirmation);

2) according to the specifics of the demonstration (deductive and non-deductive arguments);

3) by goal (scientific - achieving the truth, business - finding a mutually acceptable solution, controversy - a dispute for the sake of victory);

4) according to the form of conduct (calm exchange of views - report, lecture, conversation; dispute - debate, discussion, quarrel, etc.).

Consider proof and refutation as the main types of argumentation.

Proof - a type of argumentation in which the truth of a thesis is logically deduced from arguments whose truth has already been established. The proof is widely used in science in the study of objects, their properties and relationships, the knowledge of which excludes empirical procedures. For example, the American astronomer Lovell calculated the orbit of an unknown planet, which was discovered 14 years later and named Pluto.

Evidence by way of implementation is direct or indirect.

Direct is called a proof in which the thesis necessarily follows from the arguments found. For example, the proof that 1992 was a leap year is based on the following arguments:

1) A leap year is a year in which
tens with ones are divisible by 4;

2) 92 is divisible by 4, so 1992 is a leap year
year.

The conclusion was made on the basis of the definition and one true statement taken as arguments of the proof.

Indirect called proof, in which the truth of the thesis follows from the established falsity of the statement (statements) that is in a certain connection with the thesis.

The most common types of indirect evidence are apagogic and divisive.

At apagogic evidence the truth of the thesis is established by establishing the falsity of the position that contradicts it, i.e. antithesis. In the mathematical sciences, apagogical proof is called "proof by contradiction" (the name is inaccurate, since the truth of the thesis being proved is derived from the falsity of not the opposite, but the statement that contradicts it).

The general form of an apagogic proof is as follows. It is necessary to prove the thesis A. We assume that the antithesis is not - A; from it we obtain as a consequence some statement B. We establish that B contradicts the truth of the previously proven statement, therefore, is false; from the falsity of the consequence B we conclude about the falsity of its foundation, i.e., the antithesis not - A. Based on the law of the excluded middle from the falsity of not - A, we conclude that the statement A is true, which was the purpose of the proof.

The logical scheme of the apagogic proof corresponds to the negative mode of the conditionally categorical syllogism:

If not A, then B.

Therefore, not non-A.

Not non-A is equivalent to A, therefore A is proved.

Let's turn to an example and consider the proof of the geometric theorem: "Two perpendiculars to the same line cannot intersect, no matter how much they continue." To prove it, we formulate a statement that contradicts the theorem: "Two perpendiculars to the same line intersect when continuing." A consequence of this assumption will be the statement that from a point lying outside a line, two perpendiculars can be lowered onto this line. But this corollary is false, since the theorem was previously proved that "from a point lying outside a straight line, only one perpendicular can be dropped onto this straight line." The falsity of the conclusion testifies to the falsity of the antithesis, and the falsity of the antithesis testifies to the truth of the thesis.

At parting proof the falsity of all members of the disjunctive (disjunctive) statement is established, except for one, which is the thesis being proved. If, for example, it is established that there was a crime that could only be committed by persons A, B, C, and if, in addition, it is established that neither B nor C committed it, then it is proved that the crime was committed by person A The separative proof is built according to the negative-affirming mode of the separative-categorical syllogism and is correct if the rules of this mode are observed:

A or IN or with.

Not B and not C.

Therefore, A.

Refutation establishes the falsity of the thesis of some statement. It is a special case of proof, since it is a process of substantiating the truth of the negation of the original statement.

There are three ways to refute:

1) refutation of the thesis (direct and indirect);

2) refutation of arguments;

3) refutation of the demonstration.

At direct rebuttal the thesis, first an assumption is made about the truth of the refuted thesis, and consequences are derived from it. If at least one of the consequences does not correspond to reality, i.e., is false, then the refuted thesis will also be false. Refutation by establishing the falsity of the consequences arising from the thesis is known as "reduction to the absurd".

At indirect refutation of the thesis, the truth of the antithesis is proved. According to the law of contradiction, the truth of the latter means the falsity of the thesis.

Refutationarguments is expressed in what indicates the falsity or inconsistency of the grounds. The falsity of the arguments does not mean the falsity of the thesis. The logical scheme for the refutation of arguments has the form

If A, then B.
Not A ________

Probably not IN.

Demonstration rebuttal lies in the fact that it indicates a violation of the rules of inference, according to which the proof of the thesis is built. But this does not mean that we refute the thesis itself. There are many examples where a true proposition was considered strictly proven, although over time there were errors in the proof.

The listed methods of refuting the thesis, arguments, demonstrations are often used not in isolation, but in combination with each other. With the help of refutation, science is freed from false statements and delusions.

In the process of argumentation, certain relationships are formed between the speaker and the audience: the image of the speaker is formed in the audience's mind (see paragraph 8.2), the speaker himself creates the argument based on the goals, values and properties of a particular audience.

As already mentioned, the image of the speaker manifests itself in three aspects: intellectual (rhetorical logos), emotional-volitional (rhetorical pathos) and ethical (rhetorical ethos). The argumentative impact on the audience is carried out in accordance with different aspects of the image of the rhetor. Paphos, logos and ethos determine different mechanisms of influence on listeners, and therefore the arguments can be divided into three groups: logical, psychological and ethical. Let us present those types of arguments that play a significant role in modern judicial speech.

Boolean Arguments

Logical methods of argumentation implement the speaker's logos, influence the rational sphere of the listeners' consciousness. Allocate:

argument-fact (to the point);
argument to experience;
argument to judgment;
proof by contradiction;
argument for meaning/value;
argument to composition;
argument to circumstances;
argument to reasons;
argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd);
argument to concession (argument rotation);
maneuver strategy;
return argument (boomerang reception);
argument for ignorance;
argument from silence.
1. Argument-fact (to the point) - an argument based on considerations concerning the substance of the subject. Such arguments are among the most influential because they are difficult to refute, like, for example, scientific axioms. In judicial practice, such arguments are experimentally confirmed conclusions, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and descriptions of material evidence.

Witnesses claim that the victim was sober, that on the day of the incident he did not drink alcohol at all, or for about 6-8 hours. Before the incident, he drank about 100 grams of weak dry grape wine. However, these testimonies are not credible.

The materials of the case undeniably established that the victim was drunk, and very drunk. To establish the truth, science came to our aid. A photometric study revealed the presence of 2.55% ethyl alcohol in the victim's blood and 1.85% in the urine. Forensic expert Maslov testified in court that such a concentration of alcohol indicates a severe degree of intoxication TO

2. Argument to experience - practical argument - worldly, private, or historical.

The profession of a doctor of any specialty is difficult, but perhaps the most difficult was and remains the profession of a surgeon.<.. .="">And over whom is the punishing sword of Themis most often raised? Practice shows that mainly representatives of those medical specialties that deal with radical surgical methods of treatment are brought to justice.

Notice, according to Smerdyakov, the money was under the bed, under the mattress; the defendant had to pull them out from under the mattress, and yet, the bed was not wrinkled at all, and this was carefully recorded in the protocol. How could the defendant not at all wrinkle anything in bed and, in addition, with his hands still bloodied, not soil the freshest, thin bed linen?

4. Proof by contradiction - an argument based on the analysis of an alternative assumption, after which a conclusion is made about its inconsistency. In court speeches it is used as a kind of refutation.

The court refers in the verdict to the expert's opinion, which states that if the driver had not maneuvered to the left, but applied braking or even moved without braking, the collision would not have occurred, since the pedestrian would have moved away from the car's lane at a distance of 5 m.

The starting point for such a conclusion? The pedestrian did not stay still, but ran. What if he continued to stand? Here is the conclusion of the expert in this case: “If Mikhailov had applied braking and the car would have moved in a straight line, and the pedestrian was standing, then the collision would still have occurred, since there was no technical possibility to stop the car. But in this case, there would be no violation of the Traffic Rules on the part of Mikhailov.

So, Mikhailov is guilty of the fact that he decided to save the pedestrian, and not to run over him "in accordance with all the rules" 1 .

5. Argument for meaning/value- an argument containing the definition of the subject of speech by including it in a wider area of content as a part, type, means, by comparing and contrasting, describing the functional, spatial, temporal or hierarchical framework. This establishes the value of this item (or its absence).

Should I sort out the rest of the evidence?<...>

But best of all - a clogged window ... What's the point in it? What was it used for arson? In fact, it turns out that the window was boarded up to prevent a fire, but a fire of a different nature - from the flame of passions, because it led to a secret place for changing clothes of factory workers.

6. Argument to composition- an argument in the form of a coherent narrative depicting the action and giving it a description. In a court speech, this is one of the most important arguments underlying the proof of the degree of guilt of the defendant, since the assessment of his acts depends on the light in which they were presented.

An old worker, locksmith Semyonov will never forget that cold December day when he met an old acquaintance, respected, respected and, from his point of view, occupying a high position as the chief accountant of the head office Lyubomudrov.

Acquaintance with Viktor Ivanovich Semenov appreciated, it seemed to him even flattering.

He will not forget this meeting.

Forever remain in the memory of Semyonov and the request with which Lyubomudrov turned to him. “Gavriil Borisovich,” he said, “our typist reprinted work for the institution that was not part of her duties, and paying her, a full-time typist, a thousand rubles over and above her salary is somehow inconvenient. Will you help? What do you doubt? After all, it's quite simple. I will write money on the account to your wife in her name, you will receive it with her power of attorney, give it to me, and I to the typist. That's how you get around the bureaucratic formalities,” he sighed.

Semyonov’s heart skipped a beat, his heart beat faster: “Is it good?” But then he changed his mind.

"What's the matter, after all? I'll get a thousand rubles, I'll give it back in full, and the typist won't lose hers. What's wrong with that? And no one asks, but Viktor Ivanovich ... "

Agreed...

This conversation, as if carved in stone, will not be erased from his memory.

As promised, he did.

Polina Alexandrovna, at the request of her husband, wrote an invoice and a power of attorney, and he, having received a thousand rubles from the power of attorney made by Lyubomudrov in the name of his wife, handed them over to Lyubomudrov.

"Thank you, Gavriil Borisovich." - "What are you, for nothing, Viktor Ivanovich."

And only much later, at the investigator's, did Semyonov find out that there was no job, no typist, that an old friend, venerable, respected chief accountant of the head office, Viktor Ivanovich Lyubomudrov, had deceived him and his wife.

“I couldn't believe it. It darkened in the eyes, the legs buckled, they became like cotton wool, ”Semenov recalled here.

Everything was as it was, the Semyonovs told the investigator, and he believed both that they had been deceived by Lyubomudrov and their disinterestedness.

7. Argument to circumstances - an argument that includes data about the situation that influenced the decision or act of the subject. In a judicial speech, circumstances are usually considered that limit the liability of the subject, or the impossibility of committing an act is indicated. Such circumstances are, for example, the absence of a person at the time and place of the crime (alibi), the incompetence or incompetence of the subject, the special state of the subject.

During the consideration of the criminal case in court, it was reliably established that Ivanov Pavel Sergeevich acquired drugs for citizen Samoenko and at his expense only with the aim of not being expelled from work in the future. Samoenko was his employer and, by virtue of his official position, could easily fire Ivanov from his job.

But, dear court, Ivanov has a young daughter at home, who, due to life circumstances, got into trouble and needed expensive treatment.

Only for this purpose Ivanov took the path of committing crimes.

Dear court, these circumstances were directly confirmed in the court session both by Samoenko himself, also by the testimony of his wife, Elena Ivanova, as well as by the testimony of the workers who worked together at the construction site.

And nothing else refuted this circumstance in the course of the court session by the side of the public prosecution.

8. Argument to the reasons - an argument that includes data about the intention of the subject (his motives), which consists in the intentional setting of a goal or in reaction to the current situation or the actions of other people. The task of the court orator is to clearly substantiate the responsibility of the defendant or achieve a reduction, or even a complete removal of responsibility from the defendant.

It was Volkov's behavior that created an abnormal situation in the family, gave rise to the psychological tension in which Vasilyeva and her stepmother were daily. They lived in constant fear, waiting for something irreparable to happen.<...>Women endured - after all, Volkov is a husband, after all, a father. But a feeling of despair grew in them, and this feeling is dangerous - it is not always powerless, sometimes it makes you take up arms!

The tragedy that occurred on February 11 was prepared by Volkov's behavior for a long time. If he had behaved differently, Vasilyeva's reaction would probably not have been so sharp. She was afraid of her father, she knew that anything could be expected from him, she was psychologically prepared for violence. Violence breeds violence!

9. Argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd)- proof impossibility or absurdities any assumptions, statements, actions.

The testimonies of Rudova and Kibalnikova are far more eloquent. Both are convinced that Pigolkin was killed by Pilipenko. Why? "And no one else."

Kibalnikova explains her position simply: Pigolkina once had several cats. And then this zoo disappeared somewhere. Where the cats disappeared, whether someone killed them or whether they themselves ran away from a hungry life, Kibalnikova does not know. She did not see Pilipenko carrying them anywhere, burying their mortal bodies or, moreover, killing them. Krutin and company, who lived in the same house, did not confirm Pilipenko's special hatred for animals. True, if there were cats, they disappeared even before Krutin, Levchenko and Gainov settled in this house. Maybe Kibalnikova is right. It seems that these cats annoyed the tenants. But the conclusion that Pilipenko dealt with the cats is based on nothing but neighborly assumptions. Moreover, Kibalnikova's testimony cannot serve as proof that Pilipenko killed Pigolkina.

10. Argument for concession (argument reversal)- an attempt to take someone at their word; the use of the observed contradiction in the words and (or) actions of the opponent.

In her very first testimony, she (Turkina), true to her manner of challenging the accusation, which no one had yet brought forward, began to assure: “I didn’t lure Berdnikov.”

Is it so? Let us recall once again the invention of Natalia Fedorovna about the death of her husband.<...>She realized that if anything could get Berdnikov through, then only one thing: sympathy for grief. I am burning, similar to what fell to his lot. Berdnikov will certainly sympathize, so to speak, with his "sister in misfortune." And, without bothering herself with various moral prohibitions, she “revealed” to Berdnikov: her grief is bitter, she buried her young husband, she is a widow, poor thing!

"To lure - did not lure," God forbid, but to invent that she is a widow and needs consolation in her widowhood - she invented it!

11. Strategy of maneuver(a kind of argument for concession) - recognition by the speaker (genuine or imaginary) of the position (views, moods) of the audience, opponent, supporting this position with some arguments, and then showing its inconsistency, convincing oneself that one is right (according to the scheme “yes, you are right in ... but ... ").

The prosecutor sees in the sharp change in Berdnikov's attitude towards Turkina, sees only one thing in the reduction of her earnings and the deterioration of her working conditions - coercion to cohabitation.

Yes, there was everything: both a decrease in earnings and a deterioration in working conditions. But this is not all that can be put forward against Berdnikov. The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov survived Turkina from the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job.<.. .="">Recognizing that Berdnikov is surviving Turkin from the factory - and it is impossible not to admit it - the prosecutor understands that this means recognizing as established that Berdnikov deliberately deprived himself of the means of coercion (to cohabitation).

12. Reflexive argument (boomerang reception)- turning the evidence, argument or accusation of the opponent against him; the opponent's words are not refuted, he is accused of the same.

Here is the whole logic of the accusation: who killed if not him? There is no one, they say, to put in his place ... Therefore, the defendant and Smerdyakov remain, and now the accuser exclaims with pathos that the defendant points to Smerdyakov because he has no one else to point to ... But, gentlemen of the jury, why not I couldn't conclude quite the opposite? There are two people standing: the defendant and Smerdyakov - why shouldn't I say that you accuse my client solely because you have no one to accuse? one

13. Argument to ignorance- an indication of the opponent's lack of knowledge of the subject of speech and the protected position, as well as an emphasis on the fact that the asserted position is difficult or impossible to verify.

It had a detrimental effect on the entire course of the investigation, and especially on the consciousness of the relatives of the drowned, the conclusion of a young forensic expert who had little practical experience and conducted a study of the corpse, discovered 20 days after the incident. It was an erroneous conclusion that a hematoma of an intravital nature was found on the corpse, in the region of the left eye.<...>The formidable conclusion of an incompetent expert remained in the case. It created confidence among the victims that Ranov was the killer...<...>Highly qualified experts - candidates of medical sciences Shirman and Konin - convincingly showed the fallacy of the young expert's conclusion.

14. Argument from silence- evidence derived from the silence of the opponent or other persons: what was silent about may not be in favor of the opponent or the fact was not known to him.

The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov survived Turkina from the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job. Why did the prosecutor keep silent about this? After all, this should have caused the greatest anger of the accuser: a diligent worker is being rescued from the factory! Thunder! Brand! Bring down the accusation with all your might! But the accuser is silent. However, silence is not so mysterious. The more clearly Berdnikov's desire for Turkina to leave the factory is revealed, the less reason remains to accuse him of forcing cohabitation, using her official dependence. Indeed, with the departure of Turkina from the plant, her service dependence disappears, Berdnikov loses the only way to influence her

Argumentation- this is bringing arguments in order to change the position or beliefs of the other party (audience).

Argument, or argument, represents one or more related statements. Argument is meant to support argumentation thesis- statements that the arguing side finds it necessary to inspire the audience, make it an integral part of its beliefs.

Argumentation is a speech impact, including a system of statements designed to justify or refute an opinion. It is addressed primarily to the mind of a person who is able, by reasoning, to accept or reject this opinion.

The psychological and logical components that form the basis of the argumentation are taken into account when highlighting the types of argumentation.

The logical component of the argument involves the observance of the rules of the existing methods of inference (deduction, induction, traduction). In addition, the construction and types of argumentation used depend on the existing goals of argumentative influence. In the relevant literature, various methods and types of argumentative constructions are used: direct and indirect, complete and abbreviated, simple and complex.

In addition, for argumentation, the fulfillment of the basic laws of logic is important: identity and sufficient reason.

The psychological component also affects the way the argument is constructed. For example, it is necessary to take into account the level of education of the audience, its mood. If the level of education of the audience is high enough, and it is able to operate with abstract concepts and follow the course of logical argumentation, then, as a rule, strict abstract reasoning is used. Emotional means are used primarily for relaxation, to relieve fatigue. The lower the educational level of the audience, the more emotional means, visual images, examples from life are used. The mood of the audience also plays an important role in the construction of the argument. It is necessary to select a method of argumentation based on whether the audience is hostile to the argumentative audience or friendly.

The psychological component allows us to distinguish two types of argumentation: one-sided reasoning and two-sided.

There are two types of one-sided reasoning: decreasing and increasing..

With decreasing argument the strongest, most effective arguments are given first, both from the point of view of intellect and emotions. Then the subsequent arguments are arranged according to the degree of reduction of their total impact on recipients. The advantage of this type of justification is that it allows you to immediately grab the attention of the audience and keep it. An emotional and intellectual response to the perceived message is immediately provided. In addition, the first arguments are always remembered better, which means that they work more effectively. Most often, speakers build an argument in this way if the audience is not too interested in the subject of the speech and it is necessary to attract and retain the attention of the audience, it is necessary to convince them of the importance for them of what they hear. Along with this, this type of argumentation is also resorted to when the argumentator is little known, and in order to immediately draw attention to his person, he must interest the audience in something.

One-sided ascending argument opposite in the sequence of influence of the decreasing one. It provides a gradual increase in argumentative impact.

The advantages of this type of presentation are that it allows you to “unwind” the desired emotions of the audience to the maximum possible extent, and what is perceived emotionally contributes to persuasion. One-sided argumentation is effective when influencing an audience with a low level of education.

Bilateral Argumentation can be contained both in the speech of one speaker, who compares different points of view, and can be a dispute between two sides. More often than not, this is a dispute. Here the listeners are put in the position of choosing between alternatives, and this encourages them to actively develop their own position. Bilateral argumentation is used when the audience is unfriendly towards the argumentator.

Proof is a special case of argumentation.

in logic under proof accept a set of logical reasoning that determines the truth of a judgment with the help of other judgments (arguments), the truth of which has already been proven or is self-evident.

Externally, the structure of the proof is quite simple and consists of three elements:

1) Thesis.

2) Arguments.

3) Demo.

Thesis It is a proposition that needs to be proved to be true.

Arguments- these are the true judgments that are used in proving the thesis.

Form of evidence, or demonstration, is a way of logical connection between the thesis and arguments.

There are rules for reasoning. Violation of these rules leads to errors related to the thesis being proved, the arguments, or the form of the proof itself.

Rules related to the thesis

1. Thesis must be logically defined, clear and precise.

Sometimes people in their speech, written statement, scientific article, report, lecture, even a dispute, cannot clearly, clearly, unambiguously formulate a thesis. In discussions, in polemics, some speakers cannot clearly formulate their theses, and then state them weightily and reasonably in front of the audience.

2. Thesis must remain identical, i.e. the same throughout the proof or refutation.

Argument Rules

1. Arguments given to prove the thesis, must be true.

2. Arguments should be sufficient reason to prove the thesis.

3. Arguments must be statements that are self-proven to be true regardless of the thesis.

According to the method of logical connection of arguments and thesis, evidence is divided into into direct and indirect.

Refutation- this is some reasoning, a logical operation aimed at substantiating the falsity, groundlessness, inconsistency of any of the three elements of the proof structure. The purpose of a rebuttal is to logically destroy the unacceptable evidence as a whole.

There are three ways to refute:

1. Refutation of the thesis;

2. Criticism of arguments;

3. Revealing the logical failure of the demonstration.

Strategy- these are the most general principles of argumentation, bringing some statements to justify or reinforce others. Tactics- search and selection of arguments or arguments that are most convincing from the point of view of the topic under discussion and this audience, as well as reactions to the counterarguments of the other side in the dispute process.

Questions for self-examination:

1. What is the purpose of argumentation?

2. What is ascending and descending argumentation?

3. What elements does the proof consist of?

4. What methods of refutation do you know?

5. What method of refutation, from your point of view, is the most effective?

6. What is the difference between strategy and tactics of argumentation?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

FIRST PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

in the Russian language and culture of speech on the topic:

Main types of arguments

Introduction

1. The concept of an argument

2. Boolean arguments

3. Psychological arguments

Conclusion

Literature

Additional sources

Introduction

In any dispute, the main thing is to correctly and logically prove your point of view. To prove means to establish the truth of a proposition. Distinguish between direct and indirect evidence. With direct proof, the thesis is substantiated by arguments without the help of additional constructions. When constructing a logical proof, the speaker needs to know and follow the rules for putting forward a thesis and arguments. For example, true positions, real facts should be used as arguments, where such phenomena as approximation and inaccuracy are not allowed. The truth of the arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis. Arguments should be sufficient and weighty for this thesis. If these rules are violated, logical errors occur.

1. The concept of an argument

The goal of the speaker is to influence, to one degree or another, the interlocutor, the opponent. He must be able to convince of his innocence. To do this, it is necessary to use such words and expressions that can evoke certain feelings and thoughts. Emotional speech, expressive reasoning, illustrative examples in themselves can convince. You have to be able to prove and defend your point of view. To do this, you need to be sure of the veracity of a particular judgment, thesis. To be able to prove, you must be able to argue your arguments. Evidence is either direct or indirect. With direct evidence, arguments are given to support or refute certain statements.

From the foregoing, it follows that an argument (Latin argumentum from the verb arguo - I show, I find out, I prove - an argument, proof, conclusion) is a fragment of a statement containing a justification for a thought, the acceptability of which seems doubtful.

Simply put, an argument is a theoretical or factual position with which a thesis is substantiated.

To substantiate means to reduce a doubtful or controversial idea to an acceptable one for the audience. Acceptable can be a thought that the audience finds true or plausible, correct from the point of view of one or another norm, preferable from the point of view of their (and not the rhetor - the sender of the speech) values, goals or interests.

There are various classifications of arguments. The main classification is the one in which the arguments are divided into:

Ш logical (affecting the mind);

Ш psychological (affecting feelings).

This classification has been known since antiquity.

2. Boolean arguments

Logical arguments are arguments addressed to the mind of the audience, the listener. The consistency and logic of reasoning depend on how carefully the source material is selected and analyzed, how clearly the arguments are presented. Each thesis of the speech must be carefully argued, insufficiently strong, dubious arguments are excluded as destructive evidence.

Logical arguments include the following judgments:

l theoretical or empirical generalizations and conclusions;

l previously proven laws of sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, theorems of mathematics, etc.);

- obvious provisions that do not require proof: axioms and postulates;

l definitions of the basic concepts of a particular field of knowledge;

- statements of facts: factual material in which approximate information is unacceptable (statistical data on the population of the state, testimonies, signatures of a person on a document, scientific facts).

It should be noted the role of facts (including scientific ones), which is very important in proving and substantiating certain positions.

In the process of argumentation, it is necessary to separate the concepts of "fact" and "opinion".

A fact is an undoubted, real phenomenon, something that actually happened.

An opinion is something that expresses an assessment, one's own or someone else's view of an event or phenomenon. Facts exist on their own regardless of our desire, how we use them and relate to them. Opinions are influenced by various subjective factors, and they can also be biased and erroneous. And that is why facts are more reliable arguments that should be trusted and believed. One of the strongest arguments is the statistics. It’s hard to argue with numbers, but you can’t abuse them, as you can lose the attention of the audience. But the main thing is that these data reflect the real state of affairs.

3. Psychological arguments

argument dispute logical psychological

In a dispute between the speaker and the audience itself, psychological arguments also play an important role. If the speaker during the speech skillfully influences the feelings of the listeners, then his speech becomes more colorful and better remembered. With the help of psychological arguments, any feelings can be touched, which helps to achieve the desired result. This type of argument can be divided into the following subspecies: to self-esteem; from sympathy; argument from promise; from condemnation; from distrust; from doubt. When using psychological arguments, we must not forget that rhetorical ethics forbids the speaker to appeal to the base feelings of people, to evoke emotions that give rise to conflict between those discussing. It should be remembered that psychological arguments can be used as tricks and speculative devices.

Conclusion

Ways to influence the audience do not exist in isolation from each other. They are complementary to each other. Logical reflections, for example, can be reinforced by techniques that affect feelings, desires, etc. Both types of arguments are used consciously by a skilled speaker.

Arguing is an art. An experienced speaker does not rush forward, he studies the opponent's mistakes, but is in no hurry to take advantage of them. He tries to win over the audience with good and correct remarks, saving the main thing for the decisive part of the discussion. In a dispute, you should always have a clear idea of the subject of the dispute and leave the strongest arguments in reserve.

Literature

1. Zubkova A. Cribs on the Russian language and culture of speech. - ModernLib.Ru

2. Golovanova Daria, Mikhailova Ekaterina "Russian language and culture of speech"

Additional sources

3. http://www.modernlib.ru/books

4. http://knigosite.ru/library

5. http://genhis.philol.msu.ru

Featured on Allbest