Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.
This example looks like the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent ("If A is true then B is also true, and B is true, so A must be true"), but in this example the material conditional logical connective ("A implies B") in the formal fallacy does not account for exactly why the semantic relation between premises and conclusion in the example, namely causality, may be reasonable ("fire causes smoke"), while not all formally valid conditional premises are reasonable (such as in the valid modus ponens argument "If there is a cat then there is smoke, and there is a cat, so there must be smoke").
As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore.
Since the beginning of the discipline called rhetoric,[3] the study of the types of argument has been a central issue.
For example, arguments based on authority may be common in courts of law but not as frequent in a classroom discussion; arguments based on analogy are often effective in political discourse, but may be problematic in a scientific discussion.
The two interrelated goals of argument identification and analysis were the core of ancient dialectics (similar to debate), and specifically the branch called topics.
[7][8][9] In the 20th century, the ancient interest in types of arguments was revived in several academic disciplines, including education, artificial intelligence, legal philosophy, and discourse analysis.
[13]: 9 [14]: 19 They present a long list of schemes together with explanation and examples in part three of The New Rhetoric (1958).
[13]: 187 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also suggest a link between argumentation schemes and the loci (Latin) or topoi (Greek) of classical writers.
Loci is a Latin translation of the Greek, topoi, used by Aristotle in his work, Topics, about logical argument and reasoning.
[13]: 83 And they write, "They are associated with a concern to help a speaker's inventive efforts and involve the grouping of relevant material, so that it can be easily found again when required.
A common example used in textbooks concerns Tweety, a bird that may or may not fly:[12]: 72–73 This argument (with the addition of "All", which is shown in parentheses) has the form of a logical syllogism and is, therefore, valid.
We are justified in making the inference and accepting the conclusion that this particular bird can fly until we find out that an exception applies in this particular case.
The probabilistic version is also capable of being defeated (it is defeasible), but it includes the idea that the uncertainty might be quantifiable according to axioms of probability.
The reason these assumptions are presented in the form of questions is that these schemes are a part of a dialectical theory of argumentation.
This can be the case even when there is only one reasoner, presenting arguments, then seeking out new information or sources of doubt, or critically probing their own initial assumptions.
[21]: 47, 60 The critical questions for argument from expert opinion, given in Walton, Reed & Macagno (2008), are shown below.
Another version of the scheme argument from expert opinion, given in a textbook by Groarke, Tindale & Little (2013), does not include critical questions.
[citation needed] One can assume that the train operating authority has a policy of maintaining a complete database of all of the stops and of publishing accurate schedules.
When challenged, additional arguments would be needed to build a sufficiently strong case.
The logical analysis of arguments is especially made difficult by the presence of implicit elements.
In other schemes, as in the example of the versions of argument from expert opinion in Groarke, Tindale & Little (2013), only good arguments fit the scheme because the criteria for goodness are included as premises,[32] so if any one of the premises is false, the conclusion should not be accepted.
As mentioned above, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca attribute that use to the loci and topoi of the classical argumentation theorists.