aif
type: Ontology
comment: A number of argumentation schemes are taken from Bita Banihemi and Iyad Rahwan's previous version of the AIF ontology.
created by: Floris Bex
comment: The AIF Ontology.
version info: version 1.0

formDescription
type: AnnotationProperty
comment: This is the actual text contained in an I-node or Descriptor
domain: Statement Description
type: DatatypeProperty
range: string

AlternativeMeans Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: AlternativeMeans Exception
    on class: AlternativeMeans Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: PracticalReasoning Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1

Anchoring Illocution
type: Class
subclass of: Illocution
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: IllocutionaryContent
  on class: Class
    union of: CA-node
    union of: RA-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: Anchor
  on class: TA-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1

BiasedClassification Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: BiasedClassificationDefinition Exception
    on class: BiasedClassificationDefinition Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: VerbalClassification Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1

Commitment Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: CommitmentException Exception
    on class: CommitmentException Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Commitment Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1

Conflict
type: Class
subclass of: Scheme Application
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: ConflictingElement
  on class: Statement
  qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: fulfils
  some values from: Conflict Scheme
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: ConflictedElement
  on class: Class
    union of: Scheme Application
    union of: Statement
  qualified cardinality: 1

Conflict Scheme
type: Class
subclass of: Class
  intersection of: Scheme
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement Desc
    on class: Class
      union of: Scheme
      union of: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictingElement Desc
    on class: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1

ConflictingGoals Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: PracticalReasoning Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictingGoals Exception
    on class: ConflictingGoals Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

ContainsProperty Statement
type: Class
subclass of: Statement
comment: Main

DifferencesUndermineSimilarity Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Analogy Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: DifferencesUndermineSimilarity Exception
    on class: DifferencesUndermineSimilarity Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

Dilemma Inference
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Presumptive Inference
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: BadConsequence Premise
    some values from: BadConsequence Statement
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: BadOtherConsequence Premise
    some values from: BadOtherConsequence Statement
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: Conclusion
    some values from: ForbiddenAlternativeActions Statement
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: Disjuction Premise
    some values from: Disjuction Statement
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Dilemma

ExceptionSimilarityCase Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Analogy Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ExceptionSimilarityCase Exception
    on class: ExceptionSimilarityCase Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

Exception Conflict
type: Class
subclass of: Conflict
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: fulfils
  some values from: Exception Scheme
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: ConflictedElement
  on class: Presumptive Inference
  qualified cardinality: 1

Exception Scheme
type: Class
subclass of: Class
  intersection of: Conflict Scheme
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement Desc
    on class: PresumptiveInference Scheme
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictingElement Desc
    on class: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1

ExpertiseInconsistency Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: ExpertOpinion Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ExpertiseInconsistency Exception
    on class: ExpertiseInconsistency Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

GeneralAcceptanceDoubt Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: PopularOpinion Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: GeneralAcceptanceDoubt Exception
    on class: GeneralAcceptanceDoubt Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

GoalPlan Statement
type: Class
subclass of: Statement
comment: Main

Goal Statement
type: Class
subclass of: Statement
comment: Main

I-node
type: Class
equivalent class: Statement
subclass of: Node
disjoint with: S-node
comment: I-nodes contain information. They can only be connected through an S-node.

Inference
type: Class
equivalent class: RA-node
subclass of: Scheme Application
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: Conclusion
  on class: Class
    union of: Scheme Application
    union of: Statement
  qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: fulfils
  some values from: Inference Scheme
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: Premise
  on class: Statement
  min qualified cardinality: 1
comment: Exception belongs to Presumptive - Should be considered

Inference Scheme
type: Class
subclass of: Class
  intersection of: Scheme
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: Premise Desc
    on class: Statement Description
    min qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: Conclusion Desc
    on class: Class
      union of: Scheme
      union of: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1

IrrationalFearAppeal Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: FearAppeal Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: IrrationalFearAppeal Exception
    on class: IrrationalFearAppeal Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

LackOfCompleteKnowledge Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Ignorance Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: LackOfCompleteKnowledge Exception
    on class: LackOfCompleteKnowledge Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

LackOfReliability Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Class
      union of: ExpertOpinion Inference
      union of: PositionToKnow Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: LackOfReliability Exception
    on class: LackOfReliability Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

Logical Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    some values from: Statement
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictingElement
    some values from: NegStatement
comment: This conflict scheme denotes a conflict between a proposition P and its negation not-P
type: NamedIndividual
type: Conflict Scheme
conflicting element desc: PropositionNegation Desc
conflicted element desc: Proposition Desc

NegContainsProperty2 Statement
type: Class
subclass of: Statement
form description: It is not the case that A property F

Normal Illocution
type: Class
subclass of: Illocution
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: Locution
  on class: L-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: IllocutionaryContent
  on class: Class
    union of: CA-node
    union of: I-node
    union of: RA-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1

OpposedCommitment Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Commitment Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: OpposedCommitment Exception
    on class: OpposedCommitment Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

OppositeConsequences Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Class
      union of: NegativeConsequences Inference
      union of: PositiveConsequences Inference
      union of: PracticalReasoning Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: OppositeConsequences Exception
    on class: OppositeConsequences Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

OtherCausalFactorsInvolved Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: CorrelationToCause Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: OtherCausalFactorsInvolved Exception
    on class: OtherCausalFactorsInvolved Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

Preference
type: Class
subclass of: Scheme Application
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: DispreferredElement
  on class: Class
    union of: Scheme Application
    union of: Statement
  qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: PreferredElement
  on class: Class
    union of: Scheme Application
    union of: Statement
  qualified cardinality: 1

Preference Scheme
type: Class
subclass of: Class
  intersection of: Scheme
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: DispreferredElement Desc
    on class: Class
      union of: Scheme
      union of: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: PreferredElement Desc
    on class: Class
      union of: Scheme
      union of: Statement Description
    qualified cardinality: 1

PropertyNotExistant Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: VerbalClassification Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: PropertyNotExistant Exception
    on class: PropertyNotExistant Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

RequiredSteps Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: CausalSlipperySlope Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: RequiredSteps Exception
    on class: RequiredSteps Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

ResolvingInconsistency Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: CircumstantialAdHominem Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ResolvingInconsistency Exception
    on class: ResolvingInconsistency Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

S-node
type: Class
equivalent class: Scheme Application
subclass of: Node
comment: S-nodes specify relations (e.g. conflict, inference, preference) between other nodes. Note that every S-node must be between 2 other nodes, that is, it is impossible to talk about a relation between 2 nodes (an S-node) without specifying these 2 nodes.

SignFromOtherEvents Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: Sign Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: SignFromOtherEvents Exception
    on class: SignFromOtherEvents Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

Transition
type: Class
subclass of: DialogueScheme Application
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: StartLocution
  on class: L-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: EndLocution
  on class: L-node
  min qualified cardinality: 1

WeakestLink Conflict
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Exception Conflict
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: ConflictedElement
    on class: CausalSlipperySlope Inference
    qualified cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: WeakestLink Exception
    on class: WeakestLink Statement
    qualified cardinality: 1

AcceptBadCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Having to accept case Cn as a precedent, or as a recgnized exception to R would be intolerable (horrid, bad)

AcceptableAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is an acceptable action

AcceptableCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Case C0 is tentatively acceptable as an initial presumption

AcceptableOpinion Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: if a contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible

AdequateSearch Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The search for knowledge found is adequately compelete.

AlternativeMeans Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There are alternative means other than B.

Analogy Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Analogy
conclusion desc: CaseOutcome Desc
exception desc: DifferencesUndermineSimilarity Desc
exception desc: ExceptionSimilarityCase Desc
premise desc: Precedent Desc
premise desc: SimilarityOfCases Desc

ArbitraryConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If an argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a nonarbitrary definition for a key property F that occurs in A, and F is defined in an arbitrary way in A, then A ought to be rejected as deficient.

ArbitraryDefinition Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Some property F that occurs in argument A is defined in a way that is arbitrary

AssumedKnowledge Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is false(true)

BadChainConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The penultimate step C(n-1) leads to a horrible outcome, Cn, which is not acceptable.

BadConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is brought about, bad consequences will plausibly occur

BadOtherConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If C is brought about, bad consequences (D) will plausibly occur

BiasConclusion Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: It is less likely that a taken the evidence on both sides of the issue into account

BiasConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If an arguer x is biased, then it is less likely that x taken the evidence on both sides of an issue into account in arriving at conclusion A

BiasedClassificationDefinition Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The Verbal Classification is based on a stipulative or biased definition that is subject to doubt

BiasedPerson Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Arguer a is biased

CaseOutcome Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is true (false) in case C2

CaseProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: In this case, the individual a property F and also property G

CausalSlipperySlope Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Slippery Slope Argument
premise desc: ChainedBadConsequence Desc
conclusion desc: ForbiddenAction Desc
premise desc: ProposalConsideration Desc
premise desc: RecursiveAction Desc
exception desc: RequiredSteps Desc
exception desc: WeakestLink Desc

Causal Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A causes B

ChainRequired Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The conditional 'If A then C' is not, by itself, acceptable (nor are any sequences from A to C shorter than the one specified in the second premise)

ChainedBadConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A0 to An-1 are brought about, An which is a horrible (disastrous, bad) outcome will plausibly occur

ChainedCases Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There exists a series of cases, C0, C1, ..., C(n-1), where each case leads to the next by a combination of causal precedent, and/or analogy steps.

ChainedImplications Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is an intervening sequence of propositions, B1, B2, ..., Bn-1, Bn, C, such that the following conditionals are true: If A then B1; If B1 then B2; ...; If Bn-1 then Bn; If Bn then C

ChainedIndistinguishable Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: For any given pair {ai, aj} of adjacent individuals in the sequence a1, a2, ..., an, individual aj is indistinguishable from ai with respect to F

CharacterAttack Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a is a person of bad character

CharacterRelevance Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Issue of character is relevant in the type of dialouge in which the argument was used

CircumstantialAdHominem Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument
premise desc: InitialCommitment Desc
premise desc: OpposedCommitment Desc
premise desc: QuestionedCredibility Desc
conclusion desc: RejectedArgument Desc
exception desc: ResolvingInconsistency Desc

ClassificationProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: For all x, if x property F, then x can be classified as having property G

CommitmentEvidence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: In this case it was shown that a is committed to proposition A, according to the evidence of what he said or did

CommitmentException Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Commitment to A does not imply commitment to B

CommitmentInconsistency Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: commitments of a are inconsistent.

CommitmentLinkage Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Generally, when an arguer is committed to A, it can be inferred that he is also committed to B.

Commitment Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: In this case, a is committed to B

Commitment Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Commitment
premise desc: CommitmentEvidence Desc
exception desc: CommitmentException Desc
conflicting element desc: CommitmentException Desc
premise desc: CommitmentLinkage Desc
conclusion desc: Commitment Desc
exception desc: OpposedCommitment Desc

CommonKnowledgeBackUp Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Evidence such as poll or appeal to common knowledge supports that A is generally accepted as true.

ConflictingGoals Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There are other golas that conflict with A

ConsequenceBackUpEvidence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is evidence that supports the claim that these consequences will occur if A is brought about.

ContainsProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A property F

ContinueAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a ought to continue trying to realize A

CorrelationToCause Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Correlation to Cause
conclusion desc: Causal Desc
premise desc: Correlation Desc
presumption desc: LackOfCoincidence Desc
exception desc: OtherCausalFactorsInvolved Desc

Correlation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is a positive correlation between A and B

CredibilityOfSource Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: E is a credible expert source

DifferencesUndermineSimilarity Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Certain differences between C1 and C2 tend to undermine the force of similarity cited

DirectAdHominem Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Direct Ad Hominem Argument
premise desc: CharacterAttack Desc
presumption desc: CharacterRelevance Desc
presumption desc: GeneralBackUpEvidence Desc
conclusion desc: RejectedArgument Desc

Disjuction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Either A or C

EncouragedAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A should be brought about

EstablishedRuleConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: For all x, if doing A is the established rule for x, then (subject to exceptional cases), x must do A (subject to penalty)

EstablishedRule Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Doing A is the established rule for a

EthoticConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If x is a person of good (bad) moral character, then if x contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible

Evidential Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If hypothesis A is true, then a proposition B, reporting an event, will be observed to be true.

ExceptionSimilarityCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There exists case C3 that is similar to C1 but in which A is false (true)

ExceptionalCaseConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: For all x, if doing A is the established rule for x, then if the case of x is an exception, the rule does not apply to the case of x

ExceptionalCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The case of a is an exception

ExistanceOfSign Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A (a finding) is true in this situation

ExpertOpinion Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Expert Opinion
presumption desc: CredibilityOfSource Desc
presumption desc: ExpertiseBackUpEvidence Desc
exception desc: ExpertiseInconsistency Desc
premise desc: FieldExpertise Desc
premise desc: KnowledgeAssertion Desc
conclusion desc: KnowledgePosition Desc
exception desc: LackOfReliability Desc

ExpertiseBackUpEvidence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: E's assertion is backed up by evidence

ExpertiseInconsistency Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is not consistent with other expert assertions

FearAppeal Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Fear Appeal
premise desc: FearedBadConsequence Desc
premise desc: FearfulSituation Desc
conclusion desc: ForbiddenAction Desc
exception desc: IrrationalFearAppeal Desc
presumption desc: PreventionOfBadConsequence Desc
presumption desc: StrongConsequenceProbability Desc

FearedBadConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If you carry out A, then the negative consequences portrayed in this fearful situation will happen to you.

FearfulSituation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Here is a situation that is fearful to you

FieldExpertise Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Source E is an expert in subject domain D containing proposition A.

ForbiddenAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A should not be brought about

ForbiddenAlternativeActions Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Either A or C should not be brought about

ForbiddenCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Admitting case C0, or bringing it forward in the first place, is not a good thing to do

GeneralAccepance Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is generally accepted as true

GeneralAcceptanceDoubt Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There are good reasons to doubt A is not true even though it is generally accepted

GeneralBackUpEvidence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: There is evidence that backs up the claim

GeneralProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Generally, if x property F then (usually, probably, typically) x also property G

GoalPlan Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Bringing about B is the way to bring about A

Goal Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The goal is to bring about A

Ignorance Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Plausible Argument from Ignorance
presumption desc: AdequateSearch Desc
conclusion desc: AssumedKnowledge Desc
exception desc: LackOfCompleteKnowledge Desc
premise desc: PopularKnowledge Desc
premise desc: UnavailabilityOfKnowledge Desc

InconsistentCommitment Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Inconsistent Commitment
conclusion desc: CommitmentInconsistency Desc
premise desc: InitialCommitment Desc
premise desc: OpposedCommitment Desc

IndicationBySign Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: B is generally indicated as true when its sign, A, is true
comment: Main

Indistinguishable Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: For all x and y, if x F then, if y is indistinguishable for x with respect to F, then y also F

InferredProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A property G
comment: Main

InitialCommitment Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: a claimed or indicated that he is committed to proposition A (generally or in virtue of what he said in the past).

IrrationalFearAppeal Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: It is an irrational fear that is appealed to.

JustificationGround Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: There are grounds for thinking majority are justified in accepting A

KnowledgeAssertion Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: E asserts that A is true (false)
comment: Main

KnowledgePosition2 Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: C is true (false)

KnowledgePosition Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is true (false)

LackOfCoincidence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: There are reasons to believe that correlation is more than a coincidence

LackOfCompleteKnowledge Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: The knowledge is not complete enough to support the argument adequately

LackOfReliability Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: E is not an honest source
comment: Main

MPconclusion Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Q

MajorPremise Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: P -> Q (If P then Q)

MinorPremise Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: P

MoralCharacter Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a is a person of good (bad) moral character

NegAcceptableCase Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: C0 is not acceptable

NegContainsProperty1 Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: an does not have property F

NegContainsProperty2 Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: It is not the case that A property F

NegObligedAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a need not do A

NegObservation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
claim text: B been observed to be false in a given instance

NegativeConsequences Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Negative Consequences
premise desc: BadConsequence Desc
presumption desc: ConsequenceBackUpEvidence Desc
conclusion desc: ForbiddenAction Desc
exception desc: OppositeConsequences Desc
presumption desc: StrongConsequenceProbability Desc

NonarbitraryNeeded Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a nonarbitrary definition for a key property F that occurs in A

ObligedAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a must do A (subject to penalty)

Observation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: B been observed to be true in a given instance

OccurenceA Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: In this case, A occurs

OccurenceB Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: In this case, B will occur

OpposedCommitment Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Other evidence in this particular case shows that a is not really committed to A.

OppositeAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A (Undesired Action) is the converse of C (Desired Action)
comment: Main

OppositeConsequences Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: There are consequences of the opposite value that ought to be taken into account

OtherCausalFactorsInvolved Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: There is a third factor, C, causing both A and B

PopularKnowledge Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A were true (false) , it would be known to be true (false)

PopularOpinion Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Popular Opinion
presumption desc: CommonKnowledgeBackUp Desc
premise desc: GeneralAccepance Desc
exception desc: GeneralAcceptanceDoubt Desc
conclusion desc: KnowledgePosition Desc
presumption desc: PresumptionOfGeneralAcceptance Desc

PopularPracticeAcceptance Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is a popular practice among those familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A, that gives a reason to think that A is acceptable

PopularPracticeConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is a popular practice among those familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A, that gives a reason to think that A is acceptable

PopularPractice Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is a popular practice among those who are familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A

PopularPractice Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Popular Practice
conclusion desc: AcceptableAction Desc
presumption desc: CommonKnowledgeBackUp Desc
presumption desc: JustificationGround Desc
premise desc: PopularPracticeConditional Desc
premise desc: PopularPractice Desc

PositionToHaveKnowledge Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: E is in a position to know whether A is true or false
comment: Main

PositionToKnow Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from PositionToKnow
premise desc: KnowledgeAssertion Desc
conclusion desc: KnowledgePosition Desc
exception desc: LackOfReliability Desc
premise desc: PositionToHaveKnowledge Desc

PositiveConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is brought about, good consequences will plausibly occur
comment: Main

PositiveConsequences Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Positive Consequences
presumption desc: ConsequenceBackUpEvidence Desc
conclusion desc: EncouragedAction Desc
exception desc: OppositeConsequences Desc
premise desc: PositiveConsequence Desc
presumption desc: StrongConsequenceProbability Desc

PracticalReasoning Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Practical Reasoning
exception desc: AlternativeMeans Desc
exception desc: ConflictingGoals Desc
conclusion desc: EncouragedAction Desc
premise desc: GoalPlan Desc
premise desc: Goal Desc
exception desc: OppositeConsequences Desc
presumption desc: RealisticGoal Desc

Precedent Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is true (false) in case C1
comment: Main

PrecisionNeeded Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a certain level of precision

PresumedCause Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: B is true in this situation
comment: Main

PresumptionOfGeneralAcceptance Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is generally accepted as true, there exists a reason in favour of A
comment: Main

PreventionOfBadConsequence Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If A is not carried out, this will stop the negative consequences from happening

PropertyNotExistant Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is evidence that indicates doubt on whether A definitly property F.

ProposalConsideration Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A0 is up for consideration as a proposal that seems initially like something that should be brought about
comment: Main

PropositionNegation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: ~P

Proposition Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: P

QuestionedCredibility Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
comment: Main
form description: credibility of X as a sincere person who believes in his own argument been put into question

RealisticGoal Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: A is a realistic goal
comment: Main

RecursiveAction Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Bringing up A0 would plausibly lead (in the given circumstances, as far as we know) to A1, which would in turn plausibly lead to A2, and so fourth, through the sequence A2,…,An
comment: Main

RejectedArgument Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: argument X should not be accepted

RequiredSteps Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Other steps are required to fill in the sequence of events to make it plausible

ResInterpretation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: AA is a reasonable interpretation of A.

ResolvingInconsistency Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The practical inconsistency can be resolved by further dialogue.

SetPrecedent Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Case C0 would set a precedent with respect to an existing rule R

SignEventCorrelation Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is a strong correlation between the sign and the event signified

SignFromOtherEvents Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There are other events that more reliably account for the sign

Sign Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Sign
premise desc: ExistanceOfSign Desc
premise desc: IndicationBySign Desc
conclusion desc: PresumedCause Desc
presumption desc: SignEventCorrelation Desc
exception desc: SignFromOtherEvents Desc

SimilarityOfCases Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Generally, case C1 is similar to case C2

SocialClimate Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is a climate of social opinion that once people come to accept each step as plausible (or as accepted practice), they will then be led to accept the next step.

StrongConsequenceProbability Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: There is a strong probability that the cited consequences will occur.

TypicalObject Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: a is typical of things that have F and may or may not have G

UnavailabilityOfKnowledge Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Proposition A is not known to be true (false)

VagueConditional Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If an argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a certain level of precision, but some property F that occurs in A is defined in a way that is too vague to meet the requriements of that level of precision, then A ought to be rejected as deficient.

VagueProperty Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: Some property F that occurs in argument A is defined in a way that is too vague to meet the requirement of the level of precision appropriate for the context of dialogue in which A occurs

VerbalClassification Scheme
type: NamedIndividual
type: PresumptiveInference Scheme
scheme name: Scheme for Argument from Verbal Classification
exception desc: BiasedClassificationDefinition Desc
premise desc: ClassificationProperty Desc
premise desc: ContainsProperty Desc
conclusion desc: InferredProperty Desc
exception desc: PropertyNotExistant Desc

WasteBad Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If all a's previous attempts to realize A are wasted, that would be a bad thing

WasteStop Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: If a stops trying to realize A now, all a's previous effors to realize A will be wasted

WeakestLink Desc
type: NamedIndividual
type: Statement Description
form description: The weakest link in the sequence show one event may not really lead to another

arg1CredibilityOfSourceStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: CredibilityOfSource Statement
type: I-node
claim text: Dr. Phil is a credible expert source
fulfils: CredibilityOfSource Desc

arg1ExpertOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
type: ExpertOpinion Inference
type: RA-node
arg title: Expert Opinion Argument 1: Dr. Phil and tipping
fulfils: ExpertOpinion Scheme
expertise back up evidence presumption: arg1ExpertiseBackUpEvidenceStatement
field expertise premise: arg1FieldExpertiseStatement
knowledge assertion premise: arg1KnowledgeAssertionStatement
conclusion: arg1KnowledgePositionStatement
lack of reliability exception: arg1LackOfReliabilityStatement

arg1ExpertiseBackUpEvidenceStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: ExpertiseBackUpEvidence Statement
type: I-node
claim text: Dr. Phil's assertion is backed up by evidence
fulfils: ExpertiseBackUpEvidence Desc
fulfils: PropositionNegation Desc
fulfils: Proposition Desc

arg1ExpertiseInconsistencyStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: ExpertiseInconsistency Statement
type: I-node
claim text: The fact that tipping lowers self esteem is not consistent with other expert assertions
fulfils: ExpertiseInconsistency Desc

arg1FieldExpertiseStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: FieldExpertise Statement
type: I-node
claim text: Dr. Phil is an expert in Psychology
fulfils: FieldExpertise Desc

arg1KnowledgeAssertionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: KnowledgeAssertion Statement
claim text: Dr. Phil says that tipping lowers self esteem
fulfils: KnowledgeAssertion Desc

arg1KnowledgePositionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: KnowledgePosition Statement
claim text: Tipping lowers self esteem
fulfils: KnowledgePosition Desc

arg1LackOfReliabilityStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: LackOfReliability Statement
claim text: Dr. Phil is not an honest source
fulfils: LackOfReliability Desc

arg1negExpertiseBackUpEvidenceStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
claim text: Dr. Phil's assertion is not backed up by evidence
fulfils: PropositionNegation Desc
fulfils: Proposition Desc

arg2ArgAnalogy
type: NamedIndividual
type: Analogy Inference
type: RA-node
arg title: Tipping improves self esteem
fulfils: Analogy Scheme
conclusion: arg2CaseOutcomeStatement
precedent premise: arg2PrecedentStatement
similarity of cases premise: arg2SimilarityOfCasesStatement

arg2CaseOutcomeStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: CaseOutcome Statement
type: I-node
claim text: Tipping improves self-esteem
fulfils: CaseOutcome Desc

arg2PrecedentStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: Precedent Statement
claim text: Rewarding improves self esteem
fulfils: Precedent Desc

arg2SimilarityOfCasesStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: SimilarityOfCases Statement
claim text: Generally Tipping is like rewarding
fulfils: SimilarityOfCases Desc

arg3KnowledgeAssertionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: KnowledgeAssertion Statement
claim text: Allen says Brazil the best football team
fulfils: KnowledgeAssertion Desc

arg3KnowledgePositionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: KnowledgePosition Statement
claim text: Brazil the best football team
fulfils: KnowledgePosition Desc

arg3LackOfReliabilityStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: LackOfReliability Statement
claim text: Allen is not an honest source
fulfils: LackOfReliability Desc

arg3PositionToHaveKnowledgeStatement
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
type: PositionToHaveKnowledge Statement
claim text: Allen is in position to know about football teams
fulfils: PositionToHaveKnowledge Desc

arg4node1
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
claim text: bananas
premise: arg4node2
illocutionary content: arg4node8

arg4node3
type: NamedIndividual
type: I-node
claim text: oranges
conclusion: arg4node2
illocutionary content: arg4node4

arg4node5
type: NamedIndividual
type: L-node
claim text: Bob says "oranges"
locution: arg4node4
start locution: arg4node6

arg4node7
type: NamedIndividual
type: L-node
claim text: Mary says "bananas"
end locution: arg4node6
locution: arg4node8