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.
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.
Goddu, G.C. "What Is a “Real” Argument?" Informal Logic 29, no. 1 (2009): 1-14.