Abstract
Numerous informal logicians and argumentation theorists restrict their theorizing to what they call “real” arguments. But is there a clear distinction to be made between “real” and “non-real” arguments? Here I explore four possible accounts of the alleged distinction and argue that none can serve the theoretical uses to which the distinction is most often put.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2009
Publisher Statement
Copyright © 2009, Informal Logic. This article first appeared in Informal Logic: 29:1 (2009), 1-14.
Please note that downloads of the article are for private/personal use only.
Recommended Citation
Goddu, G.C. "What Is a “Real” Argument?" Informal Logic 29, no. 1 (2009): 1-14.