THE 10 MOST RELEVANT TYPES OF ARGUMENTS - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2025

The types of arguments refer to the different techniques that can be used to support or refute a given position. Each type of argument has different characteristics, as well as strengths and weaknesses.

The arguments are usually used in different environments and with different objectives, depending on the motivation of the issuer.

Here is a list of the main argument types and their characteristics:

1- Deductive argumentation

Deductive argumentation is one in which rules or premises that are admitted as safe or probable are taken as a starting point.

Therefore, the conclusions drawn from these premises are assumed to be necessarily valid.

This relationship can be outlined under the following formula:

A is necessarily B.

Z is necessarily A.

Therefore Z is necessarily B.

Example

Mammals are vertebrate animals.

The whale is a mammalian animal.

So the whale is a vertebrate animal.

This type of reasoning is supported by undoubted truths; therefore, its use is very widespread in the exact sciences.

Mathematical and physical laws, like the phenomena of biology, are usually supported on the basis of this type of argument.

However, this type of argument presents a limitation in other areas: its only evidence depends on the rules or premises that are taken as a starting point.

Therefore, it is necessary to be able to confirm the validity of these in order to be able to take the conclusions that emerge as true.

This is the case of the social sciences, where it is not so simple to establish norms or patterns in an absolute way.

2- Inductive argumentation

Inductive argumentation works in the opposite way to deductive argumentation. It consists of taking specific facts or particular observations in order to direct the debate towards a certain conclusion.

The strength of this type of argumentation is that it presents a series of verifiable facts as support for the conclusion to which it is desired to reach.

This can be outlined under the following formula:

S1 is P.

S2 is P.

S3 is P.

Then all S is probably P.

Example

Juan visited his mother on the first Sunday of the month, Juan visited his mother on the second Sunday of the month, Juan visited his mother on the third Sunday of the month.

Then it can probably be stated that Juan visits his mother every Sunday.

Although the premises are not necessarily generalizable, they are usually accepted as such in order to build conclusions. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the conclusions obtained are totally true.

This makes inductive argumentation weak, as its results may be plausible but not necessarily conclusive.

In this case, the conclusion of the argument depends on the ability of the person to give force to its premises.

3- Abductive argumentation

Abductive argumentation is a type of analysis that is based on the construction of conjectures.

In these cases a series of premises is established that do not necessarily lead to the given conclusion. However, this is admitted as possible and is recognized as a hypothesis.

This can be outlined under the following formula:

If A, B, or C occurs, Z appears.

Z occurs.

Then A.

Example

All flights to Madrid were canceled.

This usually happens when there is a storm.

Then, it is assumed that there is a storm even though there are many other possibilities.

In these cases, analogies are usually used in order to compare an observation with a certain rule.

The method, therefore, consists of taking a known fact as a premise to explain the nature of another similar fact.

This type of argumentation usually has a fairly wide margin of error. This is because their hypotheses are not usually supported by verifiable rules but by empirical observations.

Therefore, they can be quite convincing without being really verifiable.

4- Argumentation by analogy

The argumentation by analogy refers to those reasonings in which conclusions are formulated through comparison with other similar situations.

This can be outlined under the following formula:

X is B because:

X is like A, and the A's are B.

Example

My puppy is playful.

Your dog is also a puppy.

Then your puppy is playful.

This type of reasoning includes the use of metaphors to illustrate situations or the review of historical events to understand current events.

The strength of this type of argument is based on the relationship between the elements that share the situations that are analyzed.

Therefore, it is expected that under similar circumstances similar chains of cause and effect will occur. However, it cannot be assured that their conclusions are always verifiable.

5- Causal argumentation

Causal or cause and effect argumentation is based on the analysis of the possible effects that an action or a given situation may have.

For this, the results of other similar events are taken as a starting point. This can be outlined under the following formula:

Whenever A appears, B.

Then A causes B.

Example

When I drink coffee I have a hard time falling asleep.

Afterwards, I had coffee, that's why I slept very badly.

Therefore, it can be affirmed that this type of argument seeks to predict possible future situations based on past situations.

To this end, it usually relies on the deductive or inductive method, according to the nature of the available evidence.

6- Argumentation by generalization

The argumentation by generalization is a type of argument of cause and effect, in which a series of general rules applicable to all situations is offered.

These premises are usually based on experience and are used as an element of analysis for all events.

As in reasoning by analogy, other experiences are examined and speculated on the characteristics of these that are similar to each situation.

Likewise, as is done in the argument of cause and effect, one tends to predict future situations based on this speculation.

7- Argumentation by contradiction

The argumentation by contradiction seeks to take as a starting point a premise whose falsity it is desired to verify or contradict.

The objective of this method is to demonstrate when an approach is absurd, undesirable or impossible to implement.

This can be outlined under the following formula:

A is B, because the opposite of A is the opposite of B.

Example

Health is good, because health is bad.

The purpose of reducing an argument to the impossible or the absurd, is to give more force to the contrary arguments.

In this way, thanks to the discarding of various arguments, it is possible to finally reach a plausible conclusion.

This type of argumentation does not allow us to reach verifiable or final conclusions. However, they are quite useful when the information is limited and it is necessary to draw conclusions from the available information.

8- Conditional argumentation

Conditional argumentation is one that is based on logical relationships in which one variable conditions others.

This type of argumentation is the simplest and most common way to use deductive argumentation.

It is based on the simple relationship between a premise, antecedent or conditioning and a consequent or conditioned argument.

This relationship is usually represented schematically in the following formula:

If A, then I affirm B.

X is A.

Then X is B.

Example

If I am of legal age, I can vote.

I am 25 years old, I am of legal age.

Then I can vote.

This formula is usually applied in three different ways: conjectural, nominal, and valuation:

- If the lights are off, there is no one in the house. (Conjectural conditional argument).

- If you are under 18 years of age, you are a minor. (Nominal conditional argument)

- If it's for something illegal, don't count on me. (Conditional Valuation Argument)

9- Argumentation by interpellation

This type of argumentation is based on asking questions to the interlocutor to demonstrate a certain point.

It can be used to show that the other person lacks sufficient information on a certain topic or to guide them towards the desired conclusion.

It is considered as a speech trap, since it leads the opponent to become entangled in the flaws of his own speech.

This type of argument does not allow to reach definitive conclusions, but it aims to weaken the statements of the interlocutor.

10- Argumentation by authority

This type of argument is quite simple and is based on holding the value of an argument based on who produces it.

In many cases these arguments can be fallacious and are accepted by the fact that they have been defended by a specialist in a given subject.

The validity of this argument can be represented in a simple way:

A is B, because someone says that A is B.

Example

You must quit smoking because the doctor says it causes cancer.

This argumentation method needs to be analyzed in detail because it has several conditions that can determine its validity.

On the one hand, it is possible that whoever imposes himself as a specialist or expert is not such. On the other hand, it is possible that the specialist is, but that the conclusion has been distorted or reinterpreted in its reproduction.

For this reason, it is necessary not to assume these arguments as valid before a more thorough analysis.

References

1. Armstrong, J. (2017). The 4 Main Types of Argumentation and Examples. Recovered from: lifepersona.com
2. DeMichele, T. (2017). The Different Types of Reasoning Methods Explained and Compared. Recovered from: factmyth.com
3. García, R. (2012). Use of reason. The art of reasoning, persuading, refuting. Recovered from: books.google.com.ar
4. Torres, A. (2016). 10 types of arguments to use in debates and discussions. Recovered from: psicologiaymente.net