A number of argumentation schemes are taken from Bita Banihashemi and Iyad Rahwan's previous version of the AIF ontology.
Having to accept case Cn as a precedent, or as a recgnized exception to R would be intolerable (horrid, bad)
Case C0 is tentatively acceptable as an initial presumption
if a contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible
The search for knowledge found is adequately compelete.
There are alternative means other than B.
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.
Some property F that occurs in argument A is defined in a way that is arbitrary
The penultimate step C(n-1) leads to a horrible outcome, Cn, which is not acceptable.
If A is brought about, bad consequences will plausibly occur
If C is brought about, bad consequences (D) will plausibly occur
It is less likely that a has taken the evidence on both sides of the issue into account
If an arguer x is biased, then it is less likely that x has taken the evidence on both sides of an issue into account in arriving at conclusion A
The Verbal Classification is based on a stipulative or biased definition that is subject to doubt
In this case, the individual a has property F and also property G
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)
If A0 to An-1 are brought about, An which is a horrible (disastrous, bad) outcome will plausibly occur
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.
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
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
Issue of character is relevant in the type of dialouge in which the argument was used
For all x, if x has property F, then x can be classified as having property G
In this case it was shown that a is committed to proposition A, according to the evidence of what he said or did
Commitment to A does not imply commitment to B
Generally, when an arguer is committed to A, it can be inferred that he is also committed to B.
Evidence such as poll or appeal to common knowledge supports that A is generally accepted as true.
There are other golas that conflict with A
There is evidence that supports the claim that these consequences will occur if A is brought about.
There is a positive correlation between A and B
Certain differences between C1 and C2 tend to undermine the force of similarity cited
For all x, if doing A is the established rule for x, then (subject to exceptional cases), x must do A (subject to penalty)
If x is a person of good (bad) moral character, then if x contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible
If hypothesis A is true, then a proposition B, reporting an event, will be observed to be true.
There exists case C3 that is similar to C1 but in which A is false (true)
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
A is not consistent with other expert assertions
If you carry out A, then the negative consequences portrayed in this fearful situation will happen to you.
Here is a situation that is fearful to you
Source E is an expert in subject domain D containing proposition A.
Either A or C should not be brought about
Admitting case C0, or bringing it forward in the first place, is not a good thing to do
There are good reasons to doubt A is not true even though it is generally accepted
There is evidence that backs up the claim
Generally, if x has property F then (usually, probably, typically) x also has property G
Bringing about B is the way to bring about A
B is generally indicated as true when its sign, A, is true
For all x and y, if x has F then, if y is indistinguishable for x with respect to F, then y also has F
a has claimed or indicated that he is committed to proposition A (generally or in virtue of what he said in the past).
It is an irrational fear that is appealed to.
There are grounds for thinking majority are justified in accepting A
There are reasons to believe that correlation is more than a coincidence
The knowledge is not complete enough to support the argument adequately
a is a person of good (bad) moral character
It is not the case that A has property F
B has been observed to be false in a given instance
Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a nonarbitrary definition for a key property F that occurs in A
B has been observed to be true in a given instance
Other evidence in this particular case shows that a is not really committed to A.
A (Undesired Action) is the converse of C (Desired Action)
There are consequences of the opposite value that ought to be taken into account
There is a third factor, C, causing both A and B
If A were true (false) , it would be known to be true (false)
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
A is a popular practice among those who are familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A
E is in a position to know whether A is true or false
If A is brought about, good consequences will plausibly occur
Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a certain level of precision
If A is generally accepted as true, there exists a reason in favour of A
If A is not carried out, this will stop the negative consequences from happening
There is evidence that indicates doubt on whether A definitly has property F.
A0 is up for consideration as a proposal that seems initially like something that should be brought about
credibility of X as a sincere person who believes in his own argument has been put into question
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
Other steps are required to fill in the sequence of events to make it plausible
The practical inconsistency can be resolved by further dialogue.
Case C0 would set a precedent with respect to an existing rule R
There is a strong correlation between the sign and the event signified
There are other events that more reliably account for the sign
Generally, case C1 is similar to case C2
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.
There is a strong probability that the cited consequences will occur.
a is typical of things that have F and may or may not have G
Proposition A is not known to be true (false)
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.
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
If all a's previous attempts to realize A are wasted, that would be a bad thing
If a stops trying to realize A now, all a's previous effors to realize A will be wasted
The weakest link in the sequence show one event may not really lead to another
Expert Opinion Argument 1: Dr. Phil and tipping
Dr. Phil's assertion is backed up by evidence
The fact that tipping lowers self esteem is not consistent with other expert assertions
Dr. Phil says that tipping lowers self esteem
Dr. Phil's assertion is not backed up by evidence
Allen says Brazil has the best football team
Allen is in position to know about football teams
Scheme for Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument
Scheme for Argument from Correlation to Cause
I-nodes contain information. They can only be connected through an S-node.
Scheme for Plausible Argument from Ignorance
Scheme for Argument from Inconsistent Commitment
has Exception belongs to Presumptive - Should be considered
This conflict scheme denotes a conflict between a proposition P and its negation not-P
Scheme for Argument from Negative Consequences
Scheme for Argument from Popular Opinion
Scheme for Argument from Popular Practice
Scheme for Argument from Positive Consequences
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.
Scheme for Argument from Verbal Classification
This is the actual text contained in an I-node or Descriptor