Form Of Argument Research Articles

The rise, function, and fall of the σχῆμα Σοφόκλειον

The combination of the verb ἔχω with the active or middle aorist participle (e. g. ἔχω γράψας) acquires a limited degree of productivity as a periphrastic construction in classical Greek literature, notably tragedy (Sophocles, Euripides) and Herodotean prose. Traditionally, this so-called σχῆμα Σοφόκλειον has been regarded as a suppletive periphrasis stepping in for as yet unavailable synthetic perfect forms at a time when the (object-)resultative use of the perfect became increasingly widespread. However, a variety of distributional, formal, and semantic arguments speak against this theory. Instead, it is argued here that the σχῆμα Σοφόκλειον arose as a means of disambiguating resultative from narrative aorists, and that only its disappearance in the fourth century is directly related to the history of the perfect. Since it had always been confined to a relatively narrow range of linguistic registers and pragmatic contexts, the σχῆμα fell out of use as the perfect gradually strengthened its hold on the resultative domain.

Memory scepticism and the Pritchardean solution

A large portion of our knowledge seems to rest on our memories, while memory scepticism poses challenges to our memory knowledge. This paper will delve into different forms of memory scepticism. The goal of this paper is twofold: First, drawing on Moon (2017) and Frise (2022), I compare and criticize various forms of sceptical arguments provided by them. Meanwhile, the two most threatening arguments are picked out: the Russellian argument and the argument from doubtful reliability. Second, I demonstrate that the two arguments are essentially based on the closure principle and the underdetermination principle, respectively, and hence, Pritchard’s biscopic anti-sceptical proposal is applicable. A Pritchardean solution to the problem of memory scepticism will then be sketched out.

Analisis Satire dalam Program "In My Sotoy Opinion" di Narasi TV pada Bulan Februari Tahun 2022

Satire is a style of language that is used to satirize someone about something or the form of argument given by someone which often invites laughter. This article aims to find out the form of satire In My Sotoy Opinion program on Narasi TV in Februari 2022. This research uses a descriptive qualitative approach. The data from this study are transcripts of satirical utterances from YouTube in My Sotoy Opinion program on Narasi TV in Februari 2022. Data collection techniques used download, listening, and note-taking techniques, while data analysis in this study was carried out by identifying data, data classification, and data description. The results of the study show that the satirical sentences uttered by Devan Yulio Setiawan as the host of this program generally discuss social phenomena that are being discussed virally on social media. It can be concluded that the majority is dominated by satire in the form of irony. The findings of satire in the In My Sotoy Opinion Program form an attraction to the audience because it is motivational content that has a different concept from motivational content in general.

Explaining Recommendations through Conversations: Dialog Model and the Effects of Interface Type and Degree of Interactivity

Explaining system-generated recommendations based on user reviews can foster users’ understanding and assessment of the recommended items and the recommender system (RS) as a whole. While up to now explanations have mostly been static, shown in a single presentation unit, some interactive explanatory approaches have emerged in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), making it easier for users to examine system decisions and to explore arguments according to their information needs. However, little is known about how interactive interfaces should be conceptualized and designed to meet the explanatory aims of transparency, effectiveness, and trust in RS. Thus, we investigate the potential of interactive, conversational explanations in review-based RS and propose an explanation approach inspired by dialog models and formal argument structures. In particular, we investigate users’ perception of two different interface types for presenting explanations, a graphical user interface (GUI)-based dialog consisting of a sequence of explanatory steps, and a chatbot-like natural-language interface. Since providing explanations by means of natural language conversation is a novel approach, there is a lack of understanding how users would formulate their questions with a corresponding lack of datasets. We thus propose an intent model for explanatory queries and describe the development of ConvEx-DS, a dataset containing intent annotations of 1,806 user questions in the domain of hotels, that can be used to to train intent detection methods as part of the development of conversational agents for explainable RS. We validate the model by measuring user-perceived helpfulness of answers given based on the implemented intent detection. Finally, we report on a user study investigating users’ evaluation of the two types of interactive explanations proposed (GUI and chatbot), and to test the effect of varying degrees of interactivity that result in greater or lesser access to explanatory information. By using Structural Equation Modeling, we reveal details on the relationships between the perceived quality of an explanation and the explanatory objectives of transparency, trust, and effectiveness. Our results show that providing interactive options for scrutinizing explanatory arguments has a significant positive influence on the evaluation by users (compared to low interactive alternatives). Results also suggest that user characteristics such as decision-making style may have a significant influence on the evaluation of different types of interactive explanation interfaces.

Aesthetic Preferences and Policy Preferences as Determinants of US Supreme Court Writing Style

AbstractRecent literature on writing style in US Supreme Court opinions has focused on style as a means of furthering justices’ policy goals. In particular, an opinion’s clarity is proposed to make the implementation of the announced policy more likely. We give a formal argument that the observed distribution of opinion clarity is not easily reconcilable with justices who are striving to write clearly in service of policy implementation-related goals; this is true even if there are case-level costs that sometimes make writing clearly more difficult. We propose that justices having aesthetic preferences – essentially, stylistic preferences over opinion language that are unrelated to policy implementation – that they weight heavily could explain the observed distribution of opinion clarity. Our analysis of some 4,500 majority opinions 1955–2008 is largely consistent with our theoretical argument.

The Agreement of Personal Shopping Service through E-Commerce Platforms: A Case Study of Consumer Protection

This research examines and analyzes the legal relationship and protection between service providers and consumers in the agreement of personal shopping services through e-commerce platforms. This empirical legal research was conducted in Makassar from December 2022 to February 2023. Data is collected through direct interviews with the two informants and questionnaires for the 30 respondents. The obtained data is then quantitatively analyzed and presented in argumentative and infographic forms to describe the problem and address the research purposes. The results show that the legal relationship occurring in personal shopping service transactions can be categorized as a legal relationship of sale and purchase because there is no substantial difference in the elements. In principle, the service provider can be held accountable if the consumer suffers a loss due to the non-fulfillment of legal obligations within the transaction. In this research, the service provider has fulfilled its obligation to provide compensation, damages, or product replacements if the products consumers receive do not conform to the agreement of personal shopping service through e-commerce platforms. Therefore, it is recommended that consumers should be diligent in understanding the agreement’s terms and conditions of personal shopping services. Service providers must ensure transparent communication, maintain high-quality services, and fulfill their obligations by providing compensation or product replacements when necessary. Meanwhile, the Government should establish and enforce regulations to protect service providers and consumers, creating a fair and reliable e-commerce environment for personal shopping services. In addition, these regulations are also intended to prevent fraud that can be detrimental to all parties in the agreement of personal shopping services through e-commerce platforms in the future.

"Closing the Deal" on the Distributive Negotiation Process

Negotiations have always been going on in the business world. Distributive negotiation is a strategy in negotiations that results in one party losing in the form of arguments or material. In the distributive negotiation process, there are 5 types of closing deals, namely Providing Alternatives, Closing Assumptions, Separating Differences, Exploding Offers, and Sweeteners. Women agribusiness entrepreneurs in the city of Bogor use alternatives, Bank BNI Syariah Medan uses alternatives, namely PT Freeport Indonesia Uses Sweeteners, and Indonesian Government Glasses Use ExplosOffersffer. A good closing agreement is a closing agreement that is adapted to the situation during the negotiation process.

The Dialectical Questions: Erotemata dialectices, by Philip Melanchthon, trans. and with an introduction by Jeanne Fahnestock

The Dialectical Questions: Erotemata dialectices, by Philip Melanchthon, trans. and with an introduction by Jeanne Fahnestock

Understanding Hegel's Logic: On Houlgate's Hegel on Being

Understanding Hegel's Logic: On Houlgate's <scp><i>Hegel on Being</i></scp>

Generations of Reason: A Family's Search for Meaning in Post-Newtonian England

Generations of Reason: A Family's Search for Meaning in Post-Newtonian England

EFFORTS TO INCREASE INTEREST AND LEARNING OUTCOMES OF ECONOMIC SUBJECTS THROUGH ACTIVE DEBATE METHOD

Learning becomes quality if students can be actively involved in creating a meaningful learning process. The results of initial observations in class XII Social Sciences 3 SMA Negeri 1 Tanggul Even Semester for the 2019/2020 Academic Year obtained data on the Economics subject teaching material "Characteristics of Trading Companies " students who have not achieved completeness as much as 44%, meaning that most students have not been actively involved in learning . The subjects and at the same time the objects in this study were all 36 students of class XII IPS 3 as many as 36 students. This research is a type of quantitative research. Data collection by the questionnaire method. The data analysis technique used is statistical analysis. In this Classroom Action Research, the researcher wants to provide a learning method that has never been applied before, namely the active debate method in Economics in class XII IPS 3 SMA Negeri 1 Tanggul Even Semester for the 2019/2020 Academic Year. Students of class XII IPS 3 were chosen as subjects in the study, because researchers wanted to improve learning outcomes which so far have not been as expected.Active debate is a form of terrorism or argument, either orally or in writing, between two people or groups of different opinions, by attacking or influencing each other so that they want to carry out, act, follow or at least have a tendency in accordance with what is desired by the speaker or writer

Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond: How States Protect Life Inside and Outside of the Abortion Context

In two paragraphs at the beginning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court rejected the Equal Protection Clause as an alternative ground for the abortion right. As the parties had not asserted an equal protection claim on which the Court could rule, Justice Alito cited an amicus brief we co-authored demonstrating that Mississippi’s abortion ban violated the Equal Protection Clause, and, in dicta, stated that precedents foreclosed the brief’s arguments. Yet, Justice Alito did not address a single equal protection case or argument on which the brief relied. Instead, he cited Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 case decided before the Court extended heightened scrutiny to sex-based state action—a case our brief shows has been superseded by United States v. Virginia and Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. Justice Alito’s claim to address equal protection precedents without discussing any of these decisions suggests an unwillingness to recognize the last half century of sex equality law—a spirit that finds many forms of expression in the opinion’s due process analysis.&#x0D; Equality challenges to abortion bans preceded Roe, and will continue in courts and politics long after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In this Article we discuss our amicus brief in Dobbs, demonstrating that Mississippi’s ban on abortions after fifteen weeks violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and show how its equality-based arguments open up crucial conversations that extend far beyond abortion.&#x0D; Our brief shows how the canonical equal protection cases United States v. Virginia and Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs extend to the regulation of pregnancy, providing an independent constitutional basis for abortion rights. As we show, abortion bans classify by sex. Equal protection requires the government to justify this discrimination: to explain why it could not employ less restrictive means to achieve its ends, especially when using discriminatory means perpetuates historic forms of group-based harm. Mississippi decided to ban abortion, choosing sex-based and coercive means to protect health and life; at the same time the state consistently refused to enact safety-net policies that offered inclusive, noncoercive means to achieve the same health- and life-protective ends.&#x0D; Our brief asks: could the state have pursued these same life- and healthprotective ends with more inclusive, less coercive strategies? This inquiry has ramifications in courts, in legislatures, and in the court of public opinion. Equal protection focuses the inquiry on how gender, race, and class may distort decisions about protecting life and health, within and outside the abortion context. There are many forms of equal protection argument, and this family of arguments can play a role in congressional and executive enforcement of constitutional rights, in the enforcement of equality provisions of state constitutions, and in ongoing debate about the proper shape of family life in our constitutional democracy. Equal protection may also have the power to forge new coalitions as it asks hard questions about the kinds of laws that protect the health and life of future generations and that enable families to flourish.

Revision, defeasible conditionals and non-monotonic inference for abstract dialectical frameworks

For propositional beliefs, there are well-established connections between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference. In argumentative contexts, such connections have not yet been investigated. On the one hand, the exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic inference relations is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recently intensified efforts, whereas argumentative revision has been studied in numerous works during recent years. In this paper, we show that relationships between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference similar to those in propositional logic hold in argumentative contexts as well. We first define revision operators for abstract dialectical frameworks, and use such revision operators to define dynamic conditionals by means of the Ramsey test. We show that such conditionals can be equivalently defined using a total preorder over three-valued interpretations, and study the inferential behaviour of the resulting conditional inference relations.

Justifying convolutional neural network with argumentation for explainability

Convolutional neural network (CNN) has emerged as one of the most accurate methods for sentiment analysis, but it is largely uninterpretable, while case-based reasoning (CBR) is less accurate but o ff ers interpretable outputs in the form of arguments from analogy. This paper presents an approach to combine these two methods, CNN for accuracy and CBR for explainability, using an assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework. Our approach focuses on justifying CNN outputs using analogous sentences from CBR, while ensuring that the combined process is argumentative and hence self-explainable. To demonstrate the proposal, we construct a CNN model M 1 and a CBR model M 2 for sentiment analysis using di ff erent subsets of a dataset of which the remaining part is used for testing and comparing these input models with combined models. For an input sentence, if M 1 and M 2 predict the same sentiment, then the analogous sentence, which M 2 finds, is used to explain the sentiment. If they give conflicting sentiments, a hybrid model M 3 determines which one should be followed using a system of strict rules that takes into account how assertive M 1 and M 2 are. Another hybrid model M 4 , which is implemented by an ABA framework, improves on M 3 by considering the probability distribution of the set of all labels from M 1 , and the second (or third) most similar sentences from M 2 . M 3 and M 4 preserve the accuracy of the CNN model (specifically, 88.32% and 88.28% in comparison with 87.59% accuracy of the CNN). They justify 69.95% and 74.53% of CNN outputs, respectively.

Divine Morality or Divine Love? On Sterba’s New Logical Problem of Evil

In his recent version of the logical problem of evil, James Sterba articulates several moral principles that, on the assumption that God is morally perfect, seem to entail God’s non-existence. Such moral principles, however, only apply to God on the assumption that he is a moral agent. I first argue against this assumption by appealing to recent work by Mark Murphy before, secondly, suggesting an alternative way to frame Sterba’s argument in terms of divine love. One can distinguish God’s motivation to promote creaturely welfare on the basis of love from a motivation grounded in morality, and I claim that doing so results in a stronger form of the logical argument.

EFFORTS TO INCREASE INTEREST AND LEARNING OUTCOMES OF ECONOMIC SUBJECTS THROUGH ACTIVE DEBATE METHOD

Learning becomes quality if students can be actively involved in creating a meaningful learning process. The results of initial observations in class XII Social Sciences 3 SMA Negeri 1 Tanggul Even Semester for the 2019/2020 Academic Year obtained data on the Economics subject teaching material "Characteristics of Trading Companies " students who have not achieved completeness as much as 44%, meaning that most students have not been actively involved in learning . The subjects and at the same time the objects in this study were all 36 students of class XII IPS 3 as many as 36 students. This research is a type of quantitative research. Data collection by the questionnaire method. The data analysis technique used is statistical analysis. In this Classroom Action Research, the researcher wants to provide a learning method that has never been applied before, namely the active debate method in Economics in class XII IPS 3 SMA Negeri 1 Tanggul Even Semester for the 2019/2020 Academic Year. Students of class XII IPS 3 were chosen as subjects in the study, because researchers wanted to improve learning outcomes which so far have not been as expected.Active debate is a form of terrorism or argument, either orally or in writing, between two people or groups of different opinions, by attacking or influencing each other so that they want to carry out, act, follow or at least have a tendency in accordance with what is desired by the speaker or writer

A Note on Statistical Hypothesis Testing: Probabilifying Modus Tollens Invalidates Its Force? Not True!

The import or force of the result of a statistical test has long been portrayed as consistent with deductive reasoning. The simplest form of deductive argument has a first premise with conditional form, such as p→ q, which means that “if p is true, then q must be true.” Given the first premise, one can either affirm or deny the antecedent clause ( p) or affirm or deny the consequent claim ( q). This leads to four forms of deductive argument, two of which are valid forms of reasoning and two of which are invalid. The typical conclusion is that only a single form of argument—denying the consequent, also known as modus tollens—is a reasonable analog of decisions based on statistical hypothesis testing. Now, statistical evidence is never certain, but is associated with a probability (i.e., a p-level). Some have argued that modus tollens, when probabilified, loses its force and leads to ridiculous, nonsensical conclusions. Their argument is based on specious problem setup. This note is intended to correct this error and restore the position of modus tollens as a valid form of deductive inference in statistical matters, even when it is probabilified.

On acceptance conditions in abstract argumentation frameworks

Dealing with controversial information is an important issue in several application contexts. Formal argumentation enables reasoning on arguments for and against a claim to decide on an outcome. In abstract argumentation frameworks, each argument can be associated with an acceptance condition that may be either implicit (e.g., Dung’s framework where they are encoded in the attack relation) or explicit (e.g., Dialectical Framework where propositional formulae are associated with arguments/statements). Explicit acceptance conditions allow for expressing reasoning tasks in a more natural and compact way. However, in some cases, current argumentation frameworks allowing explicit conditions do not permit to express in a compact and intuitive way some general acceptance conditions, such as those that could be expressed by first-order logic formulae.In this paper, we propose an argumentation framework where arguments’ acceptance conditions allow for checking general properties also concerning sets of arguments/statements by exploiting aggregate functions (e.g., is the number of nearby agents greater than 5?). Notably, though providing such versatile and easily understandable acceptance conditions, the complexity of credulous and skeptical reasoning does not increase w.r.t. that for Dung’s framework under the well-known non-deterministic semantics, i.e., preferred, stable, and least-undefined (a.k.a. semi-stable) semantics.

Cauchy-Dirichlet problems for the porous medium equation

We consider the porous medium equation subject to zero-Dirichlet conditions on a variety of two-dimensional domains, namely strips, slender domains and sectors, allowing us to capture a number of different classes of behaviours. Our focus is on intermediate-asymptotic descriptions, derived by formal arguments and validated against numerical computations. While our emphasis is on non-negative solutions to the slow-diffusion case, we also derive a number of results for sign-change solutions and for fast diffusion. Self-similar solutions of various kinds play a central role, alongside the identification of suitable conserved quantities. The characterisation of domains exhibiting infinite-time hole closure is a particular upshot and we highlight a number of open problems.

Мультимодальная аргументация в эпоху Words pri­vilege

The article investigates the problem of the existence of the so-called multi-modal argu­ments – persuasive structures, where, along with written or spoken words, there are non-verbal elements that also perform persuasive functions. Such arguments are considered neither to be fully translatable into words, nor not to be total aliens in the argumentation studies. Along with the problem of translating the non-verbal component of a multi-modal argument, the question of their functional status in the structure of the argument is also discussed. It is proposed to consider such elements as premises, the connection of which with the conclusion is explained through the description of the mode (whether it is an action, an image or a recorded audio message) in which their propositional con­tent is actualized. It is argued that the mode of the actualization of propositional content of the argument is no less significant than the content itself. On the basis of this claim it is proposed to consider “classical” textual arguments as a form of multi-modal arguments.