ABSTRACT
When evaluating argumentation, this argumentation must first be checked for logical and pragmatic inconsistencies. Knowing which argument schemes are used is helpful to evaluating the soundness of the arguments that are part of the argumentation. Inconsistencies in argumentative discourse can be of two kinds: logical and pragmatic. The acceptability of argumentative statements is easier to determine in some instances than in others. A single argument can be considered sound only if the underlying reasoning is logically valid or can be made valid. The soundness of an argument that is not based on explicitly valid reasoning depends on how it employs one of the possible argument schemes. In argumentation based on a symptomatic relation, a standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign, symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint. The unexpressed premise that has been made explicit makes clear that the relation between the argumentation and the standpoint is a causal one.
