Authority-based argumentative strategies : Three models for their evaluation

Abstract: This dissertation is on argumentative strategies based on authority. In its first half, three of the most elaborate and influential approaches in argumentation theory, related to the models developed in this work, are analyzed: Douglas Walton's dialectical frame for analysis of arguments from expert opinion; Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser's pragma-dialectical approach to strategic maneuvering in argumentation; the concept of strategy used in Else Barth and Erik Krabbe's formal dialectics.The second half contains three models for evaluation of argumentative strategies based on authority. Argumentative strategies are explained as a specific combination of the reasoning aspects and the social aspects of an argumentative activity.The models are developed on the basis of three case studies. Each of the models is related to a particular type of authority-based argumentative strategy. It is claimed that the criteria for evaluation of such strategies vary with respect to the type of reasoning and the type of the audience group to which the strategy is directed. The evaluative criteria vary as well with respect to the type of authorities used and to the role the authority has in the reasoning.The models are given as a tool that different audience groups my use to analyze argumentation in situations in which the role of authorities and critical thinking is crucial.