ABSTRACT
Talking about the different kinds of arguments as clearly separable is an idealization. It seems useful to try to elucidate the concept of correct argument without recourse to the concept of truth. Unfortunately, logicians interested in analysis of full-fledged arguments are generally not very good in distinguishing carefully between what belongs exclusively to the artificially created languages that they make up and the borrowings from the natural language from which their studies take off. Since the time of Bertrand Russell's pioneering cases of logical analysis, seeking out the logical form of an expression is often seen as a process of uncovering something really present 'within' a statement of a natural language and covered by its surface form. Russell's analyses disclosing the hidden logical forms of certain sentences are sometimes taken to document that there is something such as the logical form, though its unveiling is in many cases far from easy.
