Page 153 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 153
political discourse and argumentation profiles 153
lustrate the kind of analysis we have in mind, consider the following ex-
ample taken from the Alberta provincial election this spring.
In this example, the party in power, the Government, is being crit-
icized for proposing a new law that would impose “penalties on drivers
with a blood-alcohol concentration above .05”. In response the Solicitor
General made this argument,
This [law] targets people who habitually drink and drive, . . . When similar
legislation has been enacted elsewhere, it has had the effect of reducing the
amount of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities on the road. (Calgary Her-
ald, 2012.)
This is an interesting example because it is both clear and complicat-
ed. It is indicative of the kinds of challenges our research will face. It is
clear because it immediately told us that because of the presence of the
word “similar”, this is an Analogical Argument; however, both the mi-
nor premise and the conclusion are unstated, and so we reconstruct the
argument as follows (placing the elements added in reconstruction in-
side square brackets):
In other jurisdictions, imposing penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol
concentration exceeds .05 per cent has had the effect of reducing the num-
ber of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities on the road;
[Our jurisdiction, Alberta, is relevantly similar to the other jurisdictions];
[So, imposing penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol concentration ex-
ceeds .05 per cent, will have the effect of reducing the number of alcohol-re-
lated injuries and fatalities on Alberta roads.]
The sample also presents a complication since although it is an Ar-
gument by Analogy, it is also a case of Practical Reasoning: an end is
specified as desirable (“ reducing the number of alcohol-related injuries
and fatalities on Alberta roads”) and a means is proposed (“ imposing
penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol concentration exceeds .05 per
cent”). We are then left with a case in which one argument is an instance
of at least two schemes. If we want to have a one-to-one match of argu-
ments with argument kinds, however, we will have to make a decision.
In this case, I am inclined to treat this as being an Analogical Argument
for the reason that in the context of political election campaigns a great
many of the interchanges concern practical affairs, and therefore what
will be of interest from the point of view of the empirical study of argu-
mentation is the various ways that politicians encapsulate their practical
reasonings about how to deal with the matters of concern. Let us then
consider our example to be of the kind, Analogical Argument.
lustrate the kind of analysis we have in mind, consider the following ex-
ample taken from the Alberta provincial election this spring.
In this example, the party in power, the Government, is being crit-
icized for proposing a new law that would impose “penalties on drivers
with a blood-alcohol concentration above .05”. In response the Solicitor
General made this argument,
This [law] targets people who habitually drink and drive, . . . When similar
legislation has been enacted elsewhere, it has had the effect of reducing the
amount of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities on the road. (Calgary Her-
ald, 2012.)
This is an interesting example because it is both clear and complicat-
ed. It is indicative of the kinds of challenges our research will face. It is
clear because it immediately told us that because of the presence of the
word “similar”, this is an Analogical Argument; however, both the mi-
nor premise and the conclusion are unstated, and so we reconstruct the
argument as follows (placing the elements added in reconstruction in-
side square brackets):
In other jurisdictions, imposing penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol
concentration exceeds .05 per cent has had the effect of reducing the num-
ber of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities on the road;
[Our jurisdiction, Alberta, is relevantly similar to the other jurisdictions];
[So, imposing penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol concentration ex-
ceeds .05 per cent, will have the effect of reducing the number of alcohol-re-
lated injuries and fatalities on Alberta roads.]
The sample also presents a complication since although it is an Ar-
gument by Analogy, it is also a case of Practical Reasoning: an end is
specified as desirable (“ reducing the number of alcohol-related injuries
and fatalities on Alberta roads”) and a means is proposed (“ imposing
penalties on drivers whose blood alcohol concentration exceeds .05 per
cent”). We are then left with a case in which one argument is an instance
of at least two schemes. If we want to have a one-to-one match of argu-
ments with argument kinds, however, we will have to make a decision.
In this case, I am inclined to treat this as being an Analogical Argument
for the reason that in the context of political election campaigns a great
many of the interchanges concern practical affairs, and therefore what
will be of interest from the point of view of the empirical study of argu-
mentation is the various ways that politicians encapsulate their practical
reasonings about how to deal with the matters of concern. Let us then
consider our example to be of the kind, Analogical Argument.
