Questions in Argumentation

From “Questions and Answers in Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

Normally in reasonable dialogue one is obliged to try to give a direct answer to a question, if one knows the answer, and if the question is reasonable and appropriate. If one does not know the direct answer, or for some reason cannot give it, then one is obliged to be as informative as possible.

In a dialogue, or at least in the paradigmatic critical discussion or persuasion dialogue (refer to Critical Discussion & 20241031110100-Types_of_Critical_Discussions), then, one has an obligation in giving direct answers, or as informative an answer as possible, to questions that have the following features (Walton 2008, 38):

  • Reasonableness
  • Appropriateness

Reasonableness

How does one determine or define reasonableness?

Appropriateness

How does one determine or define appropriateness?

The obligation is borne out of our (Ibid):

From “Questions and Answers in Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

[…] usual and reasonable presumption […] that a question is a sincere request for information where the questioner expects, or at least hopes, that the answerer may have this information and be able to give it.

Universality of direct answer expectation

This expectation would seem to cut through all kinds of dialogue (refer to 20241028171128-Types_of_Argumentative_Dialogue), but whether it becomes an obligation would seem to depend on the dialogue goal.

Communicative expectation v. dialogue obligation

What renders this expectation for a direct answer to reasonable and apprioriate questions an obligation, particularly in the case of critical discussions or persuasion dialogues?

While the purpose of a question is the acquisition of information, within at least critical discussion or persuasion dialogue (Ibid):

From “Questions and Answers in Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

[…] posing a question is a request to the answerer to supply a set of propositions.

Reasons why questions in critical discussion have narrower purpose

This is because what the question is doing needs to accord with the given dialogue goals, namely in persuasion dialogue or critical discussion that goal, at least, of trying to prove one’s thesis to another through the propositions in the other’s commitment store (refer to 20241031115110-The_Commitment_Store & Critical Discussion). A question under that obligation thus serves to acquire knowledge about another’s commitment store.

Dialogue obligations and reasonableness/appropriateness

Within the scope of critical discussion or persuasion dialogue, perhaps it is this obligation that contributes to the reasonableness or appropriateness of the question.

There are also different types of questions, which has baring on the obligation to give a direct answer, and have some relevance to their reasonableness and appropriateness (Ibid):

question typedefinition
whether questiona question that poses a set of alternatives, requesting the answerer to select one
why questiona question that demands a set of propositions that act as premises in a reasonable argument for the proposition that it asks about

Another type of question is the yes-no question, which is a subset of the whether question.

obligations critical_discussion persuasion_dialogue persuasive_dialogue commitment-store commitment-stores whether_question why_question yes-no_question argumentation_theory logical_pragmatics informal_logic logical_theory


bibliography

  • “Questions and Answers in Dialogue.” In Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., 38–77. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.