Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and by PDF

ISBN-10: 3319161482

ISBN-13: 9783319161488

This publication offers theoretical instruments for comparing the steadiness of arguments within the context of felony argumentation. It offers with a couple of basic argument kinds and their specific use in criminal argumentation. It offers special analyses of argument from authority, argument advert hominem, argument from lack of know-how, slippery slope argument and different basic argument varieties. every one of those argument forms can be utilized to build arguments which are sound in addition to arguments which are unsound. to guage an issue thoroughly one has to be capable of distinguish the sound cases of a undeniable argument variety from its unsound cases. This publication promotes the improvement of theoretical instruments for this activity.

Show description

Read or Download Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and Philosophy Library, Volume 112) PDF

Best jurisprudence books

Zeev Maghen's Virtues Of The Flesh: Passion and Purity In Early Islamic PDF

Strong sexuality, profound spirituality and intricate legalism are, firstly look, unusual bedfellows. the traditional Western knowledge has lengthy conceived of those numerous modes as comprising an hostile trichotomy, within which every one part is against the others. Classical Islam, nonetheless, expected a distinct method of cooperation among the sensual, the airy and the forensic.

Read e-book online Forest Law and Sustainable Development: Addressing PDF

This e-book analyzes the wide variety of matters that are meant to be taken into consideration in forest-related laws. It stresses that wooded area legislation needs to be understood within the context of the wider felony framework governing land use and land tenure, in addition to foreign duties on the topic of exchange, environmental safeguard, and human rights.

Additional info for Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and Philosophy Library, Volume 112)

Example text

Those who already have been accorded significant credibility would do well to speak up on the part of those who may be likely to suffer an epistemic injustice; this may be the best solution we have so far. , M. Shih, A. L. Pittinsky. 2001. Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science 12(5): 385–390. S. Sechler. 1986. Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(1): 24–34.

This is the case in which epistemic injustice intersects with implicit bias. This is particularly relevant for situations in which an ad hominem fallacy is committed in the course of a public discussion. In these cases, the perceptions of individuals who are not direct participants in the argument may be important. And the occurrence of an ad hominem fallacy in a public discussion might, in the eyes of those observing the argument, diminish the epistemic credibility of one of its participants. 2 Stereotype Threat and Implicit Bias Stereotype threat is a phenomenon described in Steele and Aronson (1995), in which invoking a negative stereotype about a group to which an individual belongs can cause that individual to perform below his or her actual ability.

Ubel found that while 15 % of the tactics that female respondents reported were classified as Reference Gender, no males reported their gender being referenced in order to lessen their credibility. Further, no one mentioned using this tactic against another attorney (Ubel 2008, p. 49). This study did have its limitations, however. While the gender breakdown of respondents was similar to that of Kansas attorneys, the study was obviously geographically constrained and self-reported. Further, the extent to which these tactics were successful was impossible to measure.

Download PDF sample

Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and Philosophy Library, Volume 112)

by Kevin

Rated 4.56 of 5 – based on 38 votes